AT&T has a sneaky plan. It wants to exploit a loophole in the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)’s rules to kill what remains of the public telecommunications network — and all of the consumer protections that go with it. It’s the final step in AT&T’s decade-long effort to end all telecommunications regulation, and the simplicity of the plan highlights a dysfunction unique to the American regulatory system.
For years, the key rationale given by broadband providers for implementing data caps was that it was the only way they could deal with "congestion." Of course, for years, independent researchers showed that this was bogus , and there was no data crunch coming.
It's Clear Verizon Is Blocking Google Wallet Anti-Competitively - Google Wallet Delayed to Give Isis Development TimeVerizon has been trying to justify their blocking of Google Wallet on Verizon phones , insisting the app is blocked because Google Wallet uses the "secure element" on devices to store a user's Google ID.
Why do so many Americans now live with Internet data caps—and what are these caps doing to the future of broadband?
Several Republicans in the U.S. Congress who voted this year to overturn net neutrality rules -- with most opponents arguing the rules would create the first-ever regulation of the Internet -- have now signed on to sponsor one of two bills that would allow the U.S.
I threw this together to help some people see things from a smaller ISPs view.... this is, of coarse, not as much the case with a carrier such as sprint or att&t Let us make this simple- So the "customer" pays for 6Mb/s service, and with streaming movies and such, it is coming to where people are constantly using that 6Mb/s or close to it. The customer says “I’m paying for 6Mb I should always get 6Mb”. Unfortunately, Internet access is built on “over-subscription” to attain a profit.
Ladies and gentlemen, the days of unlimited broadband may be numbered in the United States, and we're not talking wireless this time -- AT&T says it will implement a 150GB monthly cap on landline DSL customers and a 250GB cap on subscribers to U-Verse high speed internet starting on May 2nd. AT&T will also charge overage fees of $10 for every additional 50GB of data, with two grace periods to start out -- in other words, the third month you go over the cap is when you'll get charged. DSLReports says it has confirmation from AT&T that these rates are legitimate, and that letters will go out to customers starting March 18th. How does AT&T defend the move? The company explains it will only impact two percent of consumers who use "a disproportionate amount of bandwidth," and poses the caps as an alternative to throttling transfer speeds or disconnecting excessive users from the service completely.
The fight over Net Neutrality -- that fundamental principle that keeps the Internet open and free from discrimination -- can get pretty wonky. It's sometimes hard to find the right words when you're trying to communicate to policymakers, geeks and the general public at the same time. How do crucial issues like "paid prioritization" harm the open Internet? What are the dangers of "specialized services"? But a picture can be worth, well, you know.
Please read Prof. William Jones: The Common Carrier Concept as Applied to Telecommunications: A Historical Perspective Telecommunication Carriers are a subset of Common Carriers Statutory 47 U.S.C. § 153(h)(1991) " Common carrier " or "carrier" means any person engaged as a common carrier for hire, in interstate or foreign communication by wire or radio or in interstate or foreign radio transmission of energy, except where reference is made to common carriers not subject to this chapter; but a person engaged in radio broadcasting shall not, insofar as such person is so engaged, be deemed a common carrier. Telecommunications carrier -- The term ''telecommunications carrier'' means any provider of telecommunications services, except that such term does not include aggregators of telecommunications services (as defined in section 226 of this title).
[Submitted to the Federal Communications Commission as Appendix to the Reply Comments of International Business Machines Corporation in Competitive Carriers Rulemaking CC Docket No. 79-252 (filed April 4, 1980).] This paper is being lodged with the Clerk of the court for the convenience of the Court. It is referred to in the Brief for Intervenor International Business Machine Corporation in Computer & Communications Industry Association v. Federal Communications Commission, No. 80-1478 and consolidated cases (filed January 11, 1982).
By JOHN FUND The Federal Communications Commission's new "net neutrality" rules, passed on a partisan 3-2 vote yesterday, represent a huge win for a slick lobbying campaign run by liberal activist groups and foundations. The losers are likely to be consumers who will see innovation and investment chilled by regulations that treat the Internet like a public utility. There's little evidence the public is demanding these rules, which purport to stop the non-problem of phone and cable companies blocking access to websites and interfering with Internet traffic. Over 300 House and Senate members have signed a letter opposing FCC Internet regulation, and there will undoubtedly be even less support in the next Congress.
In Internet time, things change fast. Google is moving into television. WikiLeaks is changing the paradigm of international relations. Newspapers, movies, radio and TV are all available on handheld devices. And the FCC is poised to act on far-reaching rules of the road for the Internet.
This Tuesday is an important day in the fight to save the Internet. As a source of innovation, an engine of our economy, and a forum for our political discourse, the Internet can only work if it's a truly level playing field. Small businesses should have the same ability to reach customers as powerful corporations. A blogger should have the same ability to find an audience as a media conglomerate. This principle is called "net neutrality" -- and it's under attack.
By ROBERT M. MCDOWELL Tomorrow morning the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will mark the winter solstice by taking an unprecedented step to expand government's reach into the Internet by attempting to regulate its inner workings.
Peering And Disputes
6:42 p.m. | Updated The chairman of the Federal Communications Commission appears to have the votes he needs to pass new rules for net neutrality. Net neutrality — which broadly speaking is an effort to ensure open access to Web sites and online services — is on the agenda of an F.C.C. meeting Tuesday in Washington. The F.C.C.’s chairman, Julius Genachowski, outlined a framework for net neutrality earlier this month, touching off a debate about the role of the government in regulating Internet access. As it stands now, the order would prohibit the blocking of any Web sites, applications or devices by fixed-line broadband Internet providers like Comcast and EarthLink, essentially forbidding the providers from picking winners and losers on behalf of consumers, F.C.C. officials said Monday. The F.C.C. officials also said that the order would broaden the government’s enforcement powers over broadband.
Google / Verizon