Slashdot Log In
AT&T CEO Attacks Network Neutrality
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Wed Jun 06, 2007 07:59 AM
from the does-america-even-understand-why-this-matters dept.
from the does-america-even-understand-why-this-matters dept.
Verteiron writes "The former CEO of AT&T, Ed Whitacre, had some interesting remarks to make about Net Neutrality during his parting speech. Choice quotes include his plans for getting anti-neutrality legislation through: "Will Congress let us do it?" Whitacre asks his colleagues. "You bet they will — cuz we don't call it cashin' in. We call it 'deregulation.' "
More information on AT&T's attitude problem and a video of the speech are available. There's no sign that his replacement is any better."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
AT&T CEO Attacks Network Neutrality
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 358 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Subject (Score:4, Funny)
(http://www.neutronstar.org/)
Re:Subject (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not what "war for oil" means (Score:5, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Tuesday August 07, @01:18PM)
And it's not just oil. We have outsourced much of our armed services to private contractors. The military industrial complex is having a field day, and making record profits. Citizens are scared into accepting all sorts of draconian restrictions. Huge bundles of cash simply disappear. The wealthy and well connected profit. And we lose rather than gain security.
Re:That's not what "war for oil" means (Score:4, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Tuesday August 07, @01:18PM)
My point? They will never make a move in the great game that weakens their position against us, the little people. No matter how much it would hurt their opponents. That's just the way the game is played, and any ruling class person who defects and takes the side of the little people is anathema, outlaw, outside the rules of the game.
So the oil owners will never turn off the taps because it hurts their position vis a vis the rest of us, even if it wins them some points in the game. There would be too much chaos, rioting, and overturning of established orders all over the world. The powerful in the rest of the world would put aside all differences and gang up on the outlaws to restore order.
Re:stay on your own side of the pond (Score:4, Insightful)
Great God Almighty!!!! Are you hopelessly nuts? We have almost little or no actual news reportage in the US today - especially as opposed to when I was a kid back in the '50s. How many Americans are aware of the (at least) 2 attempted assassination/coups of democratically-elected President Hugo Chavez by the Bush Administration (can you spell o-i-l???)? How many Americans are aware of the second attempt - led by undersecretary of state, Otto Reich and his Cuban-American squads? Erroneously reported in American news as Cuban dissidents being sighted in Caracas at that time!!!! Un-frigging-believable!!!
Great God Almighty!!! Free press??? WTF have you been smoking, dood??? Any intelligent American is forced to read the foreign press and blogosphere for any and all news as the only breaking news in America today concerns either Paris Hilton or the deposition of Anna Nicole Smith's corpse. Nothing, but nothing gets reported in the news.
Forty and fifty years ago that testimony of Monica Goodling before congress (ya know, the one where she testified that the attorney general [Gonzo or AGAG], and the assistant attorney general both committed perjury, that there was massive election fraud ["caging"] and that the US attorneys were replaced to prevent any prosecution of past - and future - election fraud) would have been front-page news for days, if not months. Today, nothing........
Re:stay on your own side of the pond (Score:4, Insightful)
New boss is the same as the old boss (Score:2)
(http://xmoo.com/)
Attacking the network (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Attacking the network (Score:5, Funny)
(http://kaa.blogspot.com/)
Re:Attacking the network (Score:4, Funny)
(Last Journal: Wednesday November 07, @10:09AM)
Speaking of attacking and given AT&T's logo:
That's no moon, it's a space station!
Good thing (Score:2)
Welcome to the future. (Score:5, Funny)
Resolved "google.com" to [64.233.167.99]
Hello! Welcome to AT&T PingSelect(tm). Please enter in milliseconds your desired ping time to website "google.com".
>25
Unfortunately, website "google.com" is not available at that ping time. Please contact the website administrator and advise them to upgrade their AT&T PingSelect(tm) package if you wish to ping website "google.com" at this value. Please select another time in milliseconds.
>50
Unfortunately, website "google.com" is not available at that ping time. Please contact the website administrator and advise them to upgrade their AT&T PingSelect(tm) package if you wish to ping website "google.com" at this value. Please select another time in milliseconds.
>100
Pinging google.com [64.233.167.99] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 64.233.167.99: bytes=32 time=100ms TTL=247
Reply from 64.233.167.99: bytes=32 time=101ms TTL=247
Reply from 64.233.167.99: bytes=32 time=101ms TTL=247
Reply from 64.233.167.99: bytes=32 time=100ms TTL=247
Ping statistics for 64.233.167.99:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 100ms, Maximum = 101ms, Average = 101ms
C:\>
Well (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.a4fs.net/blog/)
flashbacks to Bush's speeches in F911 anyone? (Score:4, Insightful)
Reminds me of Bush's candid comments we got to see in Fahrenheit 9-11. "This is an impressive crowd - the haves and the have-mores. Some people call you the elites; I call you my base."
Question: did this guy know there was a camera rolling?
Re:flashbacks to Bush's speeches in F911 anyone? (Score:5, Informative)
What's all the fuss? (Score:5, Funny)
(Last Journal: Wednesday November 07, @10:09AM)
I mean look at how well "deregulation" worked in the airline industry? More people can fly, flights are cheaper, to more destinations... crammed into tiny airplanes with more people... lousier food... more delays... bad customer service... bankruptcies... never mind.
Re:What's all the fuss? (Score:4, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Tuesday September 13 2005, @03:45PM)
Air travel isn't a natural monopoly though.
Re:What's all the fuss? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:What's all the fuss? (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://ak3ldama.blogspot.com/ | Last Journal: Monday October 29, @12:17AM)
Re:What's all the fuss? (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://czyanglican.blogspot.com/)
Kind of like the Automotive industry has in the past few years when they started offering those 0% deals. GM figured their financing cost of capital was low enough that, yeah, sure, they'd bleed, but it would be stabbing the heart of Chrysler and the slitting the jugglar at Ford when those companies matched the offer. Why? Proably because some idiot was worried about next quarter's marketshare numbers instead of making a profit.
Well it worked, but the japs didn't take the bait and now what's happening? And the auto industry ain't regulated. There are some businesses that make really stupid decisions. No amount of regulation is going to stop people from being stupid.
Where I am now, I can have my phone service with one company and DSL through another. My Dad lives in a state where it's a regulated local monopoly and his phone company as screwed the customers for years in DSL rates and the cable company isn't much better since they know the customers really don't have any other choices. If he lived 2 miles north of where he does, he could get DSL for $30 a month where he's paying about $45 now for the same speed. The state I'm living in now "deregulated" by saying that local phone companies had to open their lines to any provider that I choose.
Re:What's all the fuss? (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.game-point.net/ | Last Journal: Monday November 14 2005, @09:19AM)
I'd call that very strong regulation. I think it's just a different kind of regulation, but it sure aint deregulation. Deregulation would be saying, "the line's yours. Go ahead and do what you want. Hell, the owners have a right to profit out of their infrastructure!" The company wouldn't open the line up to competition, and you'd be screwed as hell.
Voting time (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.infiltrated.net/)
Re:Voting time (Score:5, Informative)
(Last Journal: Wednesday November 07, @10:09AM)
Well, you can certainly fill up your Senator or Congressman's inbox with emails, but you've got to remember that rarely do they actually read all their own email. Usually it's screened by their staff for content first, so they get a sanitized picture of what constituents want. It's better to hunt these people down on the campaign trail and ask them pointed questions before news cameras. Also, even if they do "read" all their email, unless that's followed up by actual votes there's little chance of any great impact. I don't think either party is courting the "Internet voter".
We need an appropriate response (Score:2, Interesting)
Back in ancient times, the UAW would target ONE company for a strike, in order to get an agreement that could be used later as leverage with the others. Say what you like about the state of the auto industry today, but the tactic worked with great effect.
Next, we have the NRA, and their targeted boycotts. When they were unhappy with Smith and Wesson's push for high-tech gun locks, they instituted a very effective boycott. Their manufacturing slowed to a crawl as sales tanked. S&W was sold at a fire sale price as a result. The CEO landed at some lawnmower company. I heard the NRA considered boycotting the lawnmowers as well.
We can't boycott all of the ISPs at the same time, but we COULD pick one and boycott them. Even the dimmest bulb in the executive suite can understand poor revenue and trace it back to customer unrest.
Re:We need an appropriate response (Score:4, Informative)
(Last Journal: Sunday October 22 2006, @10:27PM)
So what's the real scoop on their pension issue, is it just BS or a consequence of poor management or is there something more to it?
This is a very good question. I wanted to know the answer myself for same reason you listed above: why agree to a pension without being able to monitor its funding status, and relying on future profitability? Why allow other creditors to have seniority to pensioners in collecting debt? (Since a pension is deferred compensation, and workers are senior to bondholders in payment of obligations, pensioners should always be senior, and credit ratings and lenders should always assume they'll be behind in line.) How can you assume no competitors will enter the market?
Unfortunately, it's hard to get reliable information on this, and I try as hard as possible to avoid "well they were just stupid"-type conclusions. I also can't read a financial statement from a corporation. But that's what every source confirms: GM promised an unfunded pension, predicated on future profitability, and the failure of GM was considered impossible. My best guess as to why it happened would be:
-stupidity on the part of unions, who refused to accept the possibility that their employer doesn't dictate its own profits.
-malice on the part of management, who was willing to indulge this fantasy in exchange for valuable union concessions, knowing the union would have no leverage when the obligations came due. Likely arrogance about the possibility of competition.
When I first heard about pension problems affecting profitability, I was confused: aren't they funded in advance from a separate account? Well, they aren't.
Hope that helps.
Nothing to see here (Score:1)
What a surprise.
"You bet they will -- cuz we don't call it cashin' in. We call it 'deregulation.'
I don't call it customer satisfaction. I call it screw'n them over.
Regulation may give more freedom (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Regulation may give more freedom (Score:5, Insightful)
Corporations fall into this same pattern. They have to make the numbers this quarter, THE NUMBERS, YOU DUMB FUCK! COKE IS FOR CLOSERS! etc etc. So that's where you see the fans of deregulation coming in. Have you noticed the dismantling of the rules and regs put in place after the '29 crash to make sure that we wouldn't have another one? With the rules in place, you can have a reasonable profit for years to come. Without the rules you can make a fucking killing...and I guess you'd better hope that goose has a lot of meat on the bones because that's all you'll be eating as the markets struggle to recover.
Product differentiation is BASIC (Score:3, Interesting)
(http://pages.sbcglobal.net/redelm)
Now, after a lot of ISP/webhost consolidation, some of the biggies want to reintroduce performance tiering. To differentiate commodity IP transport into various service levels. That's elementary marketing to capture increased revenue from those customers willing to pay more.
I'm far from certain this is a bad thing. Instead of everyone having the same (erratic) latency, some people will pay for better, and the rest will get slightly worse. Frankly, I'm far more concerned about preserving competition between ISPs at all levels, from comsumer last-mile broadband up through the long-haul links.
Re:Product differentiation is BASIC (Score:5, Informative)
(http://www.isely.net/)
You are not understanding the issue here. Put simply:
This issue isn't about how much I must pay my ISP for decent net connectivity.
This issue is about how much Google must pay my ISP for decent net connectivity.
Google already pays for their own connectivity. My ISP is already paid by me. My "pipe" is already paid for. Why should my ISP be paid twice? What right does my ISP have to individually charge every conceivable web site that I might access?
Frustrating. (Score:3, Insightful)
(http://designelement.us/)
That's the ultimate problem here. People don't know this is going on, first of all. I suppose the media doesn't deem it exciting enough to report this. But it wouldn't make a difference if they did because most people likely wouldn't care. Even worse, they probably wouldn't even see anything wrong with what AT&T wants to do.
People have gotten so used to paying for every little thing that they be able to justify AT&T's position. I suspect that's one of the underlying motivations for this trend. Companies are realizing just how tolerant consumers are of this nonsense. I've read that recent studies have found that consumers are growing increasingly comfortable with monthly payments. A company can raise rates on a regular basis and few complain.
People like to whine about gasoline prices, but Americans are still paying far less than most of the rest of the world. And it's still cheaper per gallon that a lot of other things they consume. They're getting screwed worse in other ways and don't even realize it or even care. It's frustrating sometimes to see all this ignorance and to see this disdain for the people on the part of the politicians.
Re:Frustrating. (Score:4, Insightful)
Devil's Advocate (Score:1)
Let's say that your company spent BILLIONS of dollars rolling out new Fibre across the nation and then you were told that you cannot charge for access to that net?
Deregulation isn't always a bad thing but in this case i think it will destroy many a business that can't or won't pay to play with the big-boys.
Call your reps my fellow Americans, this is still our country!
Re:Devil's Advocate (Score:5, Interesting)
Do you know what network neutrality is? Why would network neutrality prevent someone for charging for use of their network (which by the way was subsidized by our tax dollars to the tune of billions)? All the network neutrality proposals ever to see any support in congress call for a ban on charging different prices for traffic based upon who is sending the traffic... and that is it. You can still charge for traffic. You can still charge different amounts for different types of traffic. You just can't charge different amounts based upon where the traffic came from. This is to prevent AT&T from asking for money from some company who buys access from AT&T's peer's peer's peer, in exchange for not intentionally slowing down that traffic as it crosses their network. I might mention, in the situation I just mentioned AT&T has already been paif by their peer to carry the traffic, so it is not a question of them not being able to charge for it.
I work with a lot of ISPs and big network providers. Their side of the story is that they want to be able to charge people with lots of money extra for the same service they supply to other people, by using their location as a gateway and by telling their peering router "sure I'm the best way to get that traffic there" and then intentionally slowing the traffic down so their previous claim to the router was a lie. Quite simply, they want to be able to gouge people by ignoring the responsibility of a common carrier. It is a lot easier to do this, than to actually add real value through faster connections or services where they have to be competitive. I mean if you build out a DDoS filter service it might not be as good as Sprint's. They'd have to work hard and take risks. They'd much rather abuse their location in the network in order to collect money for nothing. It is extortion, plain and simple.
I'm glad you're in favor of net neutrality, but I think your reasons are a bit off. We gave the network operators billions of our tax dollars. That is what prevents little companies from entering the market. We give them special protections from prosecution for the traffic they carry under the auspice that they are impartial, common carriers, not responsible for what crosses their network. Both of these were done for the common good. If they want to be mercenary and be unregulated let them, right after they pay the money back and after we start prosecuting them for transporting child pornography and contributing to copyright infringement. If they want to eb treated like any other company we should oblige them, but if they want to be supported and protected by special laws, we should be getting something back for the american people.
This from AT&T (Score:2)
I give that legislation (if it passes) 29 months from the merger date. If we get past 30 months, it'll never pass.
Ed's Mission Accomplished (Score:1, Interesting)
Anyway, he told me his biggest dream was to reunite AT&T. I thought "yeah, right", but looking back, it is clear that he was going to do anything he could to make his dream a reality. He did it.
Not that I think AT&T remerging was a good idea, but I admire his tenacity.
That said, I wish AT&T was broken up again. It's really annoying when I'm having DSL problems, which AT&T Internet Services can't seem to fix, so they blame the phone company (Also AT&T) and my telephone (Again, carrying the AT&T brand label). When I point out to the manager that they're all AT&T, and why can't they get together and fix the problem, I was told "big companies don't work that way". AAAARRRGGGHHH!!!!!
Anyone actually RTFM? (Score:1, Offtopic)
(http://www.echtehelden.org/)
I'd like to see the video (Score:3, Funny)
(http://www.bcpdd.com/ | Last Journal: Saturday February 24 2007, @06:21PM)
Easy Fix (Score:5, Interesting)
If you don't like the rules, don't play them. Other companies will step up where you fail and provide the service the public demands and deserves.
Deregulation (Score:2)
(Last Journal: Friday February 11 2005, @04:09AM)
Ed Whitacre is a POS (Score:1)
Air neutrality (Score:1)
(http://technical-writing.dionysius.com/ | Last Journal: Monday November 05, @03:35PM)
We have a problem, this air neutrality thing. Air -- made of oxygen and other gasses -- is a valuable commodity. We all pay for it, since it's cheaper for us to pollute recklessly, but we don't. Why can't we charge for it? Neutral air is a threat to our economy and the basis of our great nation.
I think I was just born in the wrong time. I don't understand the motivation for our economy, for our government, for our mass media. It seems like we have lost sight of what really gives life importance, and I miss that vision of clarity of that importance I had during childhood. C'est la vie, but how does the story end?
Non-neutral internet has already been tried (Score:2, Interesting)
Let's make Ed Whitacre a deal... (Score:5, Insightful)
Is it April 1st? (Score:2, Informative)
about the accompanying video I click on that. Well surprise! That "video" is a PARODY (funny).
Am I missing something here?
In other news... (Score:2)
Is it so hard... (Score:1)
Makes me wish you could moderate OPs or at least give some sort of direct feedback of the same sort.
That's why... (Score:3, Funny)
Why is it getting warm in here?
People keep misunderstanding net neutrality (Score:3, Insightful)
They have 3 options:
1.They can increase their prices so that they can afford to expand their network so it can handle the increased amount of multimedia traffic.
2.They can introduce limits on how much you can download so that your $x per month only includes 10GB of transfers or 5GB of transfers or whatever.
or 3.They can throttle access to the high bandwidth multimedia sites unless those sites are willing to pay money to the ISP to cover the fact that the ISPs network cant handle the traffic.
The ISPs don't want to pick option 1 because they would loose customers to other ISPs who didnt pick option 1 (or with networks that aren't yet congested enough for the ISP to need to pick an option)
They don't want to pick option 2 either because most consumers don't have a clue how much bandwidth they are using or how much data they are transferring (unlike, say, phone calls where costs are based on how long you are on the phone which is an easy thing to measure). So if ISPs start setting limits, they would loose customers who would think "I don't want to be hit with a bill at the end of the month and I don't have a clue how much I am downloading so I will find an ISP that has no such restrictions"
So, ISPs faced with increasingly congested networks want to be able to throttle back speeds to known high bandwidth sites. That or have the site pay up to get better treatment.
Anyone who says net neutrality is about QoS or common carrier or anything else is wrong. The issue at stake here is simply that ISPs want to throttle high bandwidth sites and protocols unless they are paid money by the owners of those sites.
Quid Pro Quo (Score:2)
(http://www.gnolaum.com/)
If AT&T starts double (and triple dipping) Google (just an example) could come in, lay down a combination of fiber and wireless and offers a services that are pro network neutrality.
Then the market could let consumers decide which one they want. Instead of government bureaucrats in a city trying to second guess a thousand miles away.
Anyone else reminded of something? (Score:2)
(http://savewizwar.com/)
ISPs are trying to cover their lack of foresight (Score:1)
The ISPs and governments need to start facing the facts that the Internet in general is starting to require more and more bandwidth period. They need to upgrade their hardware and stop talking about laying fiber across the continent, and just do it already.
The Internet is evolving to strain the infrastructure originally put in place for it. The solution is not to stifle that growth, but to upgrade infrastructure to keep pace or even prepare for the future of video on demand and whatever other fun stuff comes next.
And in other news ... (Score:2)
(http://linuxhomepage.com/)
And in other news ... AT&T has leaked information about their plans to buy the US interstate roadway system. "Not only will we be able to charge high tolls for all traffic when they enter and when they exit, but we'll also be able to charge all the cities for access ramp rights. That way we can get overpaid many times for the same thing, just like we do in the telecommunications sector. Highway neutrality is over."
Free Markets (Score:1)
(http://www.sophiafieldphotography.com/)
If the market was naturally free there would be no need for government at all. I'm sure some hyper-libertarian just stood up and cheered. But the fact is that without any regulation whatsoever free markets disappear: no really, go check out what happens when there is no regulation in less developed countries: a small number of powerful people exercise their wonderful freedom in the truly free market to wrest control from everyone else and pretty soon you've got abusive monopolies and terriffic exploitation everywhere.
Sorry: but we need regulation to make sure the market stays competitive and free. This is the hightest calling of government, methinks: to ensure that the playing field does not get too tilted. This is what network neutrality is about. AT&T wants to be free enough to tilt everything so dramatically in their favor that others can no longer compete.
Anyone else remember when you could only rent your phones from an AT&T store? And there were only a handful of featureless models to choose from? And there were no technological advances in telephony for ages? Yeah: that's the "free market" that AT&T promotes.
Cheers.
BBS anyone? (Score:1)
Yeah... screw the man. Oh wait... we would still have to use phone lines...
Hold on, I'll think of something...
it's a hoax (Score:1)
(http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Thursday January 30 2003, @07:52PM)
Video and speech are fake (Score:1)
You Idiots (Score:1)
Re:As I dial up user... (Score:1)
AT&T1000 (Score:2)
(http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Sunday September 09, @10:43PM)
Re:It's time to take the next step (Score:2)
(http://www.livejournal.com/users/sinistertim101 | Last Journal: Saturday March 24 2007, @12:32PM)
They are step ahead with this area as well.