“You’ve got to hand it to AT&T. They don’t like Julius Genachowski’s plan to apply network neutrality rules to wireless networks, and they aren’t shy about saying so,” Saul Hansell reports for The New York Times.
“Not so for Verizon and Sprint, which declined to answer a direct question about whether they think wireless systems should be covered by net neutrality rules,” Hansell reports.
“In its statement, AT&T said it supported applying the existing four neutrality principles to wired networks, and is open to adding a fifth principle that would prevent companies from discriminating against certain services and applications on wired networks. But the company drew the line at wireless networks,” Hansell reports. “Wireless service doesn’t need regulation, AT&T argued, as it is a very competitive market. The company appears to be most concerned about rules that might force it to eliminate certain restrictions it has that limit how much data wireless customers can use. Wireless networks ‘are facing incredible bandwidth strains,’ the company wrote, and ‘require continued private investment at very high levels, and pro-active network management.'”
Hansell reports, “The company’s harshest words focused on the F.C.C.’s auction of wireless spectrum last year. One block, purchased by Verizon Wireless, specifically required the winner to open the frequencies to any device and application. AT&T bought other blocks of spectrum that had no such explicit conditions. In its statement today, the company noted ‘that unencumbered spectrum was sold for many billions more’ than the spectrum Verizon bought.”
For the F.C.C. to now place such requirements on that spectrum so soon after the auction creates the impression of a ‘bait and switch,’ and could raise questions about the fairness and integrity of the auction process itself. – AT&T
Hansell reports, “The C.T.I.A., the wireless trade group, also raised significant reservations about the new rules. It said: “The commission is considering changing the rules after the auction — impacting companies’ confidence in the auction process — just as carriers are facing a brewing spectrum crisis.”
Full article here.
[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “Steve P.” for the heads up.]
just as carriers are facing a brewing spectrum crisis – oh please. Don’t you just love how people pushing certain agendas love to misuse the word “crisis”? Try visiting countries where people have to fight over food and water. This is not in any way a “crisis”.
I’m with AT&T;on this one. Gov’t regulation has become way too excessive.
As I (would have) said in yesterday’s thread, Net Neutrality regulation should go only so far as to prohibit ISPs from restricting bandwidth based on its CONTENT or SOURCE. Restricting / tier-pricing total bandwidth to customers or specific types of data (e.g., high-bandwidth streaming media) is a perfectly reasonable exercise of discretion, so long as it is done without regard to whose data is being limited.
Somewhere, in a dark room, a shimmering holographic image of Eric Schmidt looks out at a kneeling Genachowski.
Schmidt: “You have done well my apprentice.”
In theory, Net Neutrality is a good idea, and it fosters a competitive marketplace.
However, ATT is right about the spectrum auction. Perhaps their spectrum purchase could have a grandfather clause for a certain number of years.
Oh no! We have wi-fi-care crisis…
Now a bunch more honest people are get the snot taxed out them for inferior quality services.
just my $0.02
In earlier debates on this subject, one poster stated that he just didn’t understand why Conservatives had such a “fear” of the Government. This is one of the reasons. Government agencies have the ability to retroactively change the rules, along with the power to tell you “tough shit” when you get hammered by one of their reversals. I saw my Mom lose have her retirement savings when the IRS to rewrote its code, and decided that it should go into effect 10 years retroactively. WTF!! It’s not FEAR, it healthy skepticism of human nature and the ability of power to corrupt.
My Favorite misuse of the word Crisis is Obama as it applies to health care and health insurance. Every other word is Health Care Crisis, Crisis in Health Care, Health Insurance Crisis and the big one Affordable Health Insurance Crisis for the Poor on public assistance (the group of people that the Federal Government already requires be provided with free public health care provided by the US Tax payers).
@Demon
Please see: http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2009/08/open_thread_346.html
You will love it.
All about the school lunch “crisis.”
I despise big government.
But let’s get something straight: Properly structured Net Neutrality is pro market, not pro government.
Net Neutrality recognizes the pipe as a pipe, and nothing more.
Typical BS. THIS is why conservatives and reasonable moderates are skeptical about government attempts to “solve” problems; because it can use coercion, government is frequently abusive. There is no “problem” here for government to solve, so it will just invent one and cause harm.
Ahhh, this is why you don’t want to DEPEND on the government.
They will screw you any way they can, then think up some new ways and screw you retroactively.
You want them running health care?
@Nuclear Kid writes: “I’m with AT&T;on this one. Gov’t regulation has become way too excessive.”
I agree that it’s unfair to change the rules after they’ve bought the spectrum. I disagree with your blanket statement though. Some regulations are good and should be enforced. As they say, the fire code is written in blood. What we need is fewer rules, with strong enforcement. If you just get rid of all the rules, you end up with multi-trillion dollar financial meltdowns, paid for by taxpayers.
So what we need is telecommunications reform. It isn’t right that some people get 14Mb/s download speed while others are stuck on satellite, dial-up, or have no broadband at all. Some people have iPhones with access to 75,000 apps while others have a normal cell phone that can do nothing but place and receive calls.
Service providers have different pricing schemes based on different areas.
These inequities in telecommunications must be dealt with swiftly and I demand a bill be passed by the end of the week.
My plan is that all communications will be merged into a large plan, and services will be redistributed so that all people have equal access to communications. We will not be rationing communications, and you can still use your current provider.
What you say? You like your services the way they are? Like I said, read my lips, we won’t be changing those services. Yes we will be averaging out the amount of bandwidth people get, those of you with 14Mb/s connections will be normalized to about 1.4Mb/s but that 1.4Mb/s will be for all Americans, not just the wealthy few. It’s the public option.
We also feel it is mandatory that people have broadband communications capabilities so if you do not you will be taxed {cough} fined and you will receive the services whether you want them or not.
Also these rumors of us pulling the plug on grandma’s cable television have got to stop. We are just saying that at a certain point in life, maybe granny doesn’t want to spend her final days watching wheel of fortune, and that bandwidth could be used elsewhere.
Now there’s a lot of misinformation out there about this telecommunications reform plan and if any of you hear things that don’t agree with what I told you, please check into our website and report those people so that we might educate them properly.
Sorry, did I mention that the cost of my Telecommunications Reform Bill will be a mere $800 million dollars and that it will be deficit neutral and that existing wasted bandwidth will pay for most of it?
@Think writes: “You want them running health care?”
Every other first world country manages to have government pay for health care for everyone at a fraction of the cost of the US system and with better outcomes. No other first world country lets tens of thousands of citizens die each year for lack of basic health coverage. If the US government isn’t up to the task of doing this right, then we need to fix the government.
Brilliant.
(Not exactly about ‘Net Neutrality, though)
Demon demonizes by saying: “My Favorite misuse of the word Crisis is Obama as it applies to health care and health insurance. Every other word is Health Care Crisis, Crisis in Health Care, Health Insurance Crisis and the big one Affordable Health Insurance Crisis for the Poor on public assistance (the group of people that the Federal Government already requires be provided with free public health care provided by the US Tax payers).”
Nice try at clouding the discussion. BUT….the crisis has to do with thousands of families going bankrupt because of medical expenses and millions of people facing possible financial wipeout because of no insurance, underinsurance, or the recision practices of medical insurance companies. The crisis also affects small businesses that cannot afford to insure their employees. Sorry that the Demon feels no crisis, but it is still there for millions of Americans.
@ Demon
Let me give you some perspective on the cost of healthcare in my state,”Texas, national report that was released [9/15/09] says family health insurance premiums in Texas increased 91.6 percent since 2000 — 4.6 times faster than earnings.” Texas also ranks as #1 in the country with the most uninsured. The rise in insurance premiums has a negative effect on workers pay, as even with raises and cost of living adjustments the amount of net income Texans are bringing home decreases due to rising insurance premiums.
Now, I wouldn’t use the word “crisis” as a descriptor for this issue, but I would say it is a problem.
That being said, to address this article in particular, I’m siding with AT&T;on this one. They purchased a part of the spectrum that doesn’t stipulate open access to a variety of application or devises; they should get what they paid for. I do also feel that if the FCC applies “net neutrality” regulations to wireless networks retroactively then the fed should give some kind of rebate or tax credit to telco to compensate them such action. It would be cheaper than some prolonged breach of contract law suit.
The cellular infrastructure in the U.S. lags far behind what’s offered in other countries. Hell, AT&T;can’t even keep up with the amount of demand that the iPhone creates on its own systems. It showed that it was ill prepared for the initial launch of the iPhone and subsequent updates, and they’re the exclusive network provider for the device. Yes, they’re updating their network. Yes, the prime motivator for this is our favorite computer/wireless device company. However, I for one do not believe that they would’ve done so had Apple and iPhone users not forced their hand.
@theloniousMac
Excellent post my friend. Funny but based on the worrying reality that we live in.
Original Jake writes, “THIS is why conservatives and reasonable moderates are skeptical about government attempts to “solve” problems; because it can use coercion, government is frequently abusive.”
Absolutely. And I remain surprised that a Congress full of lawyers fails to consider that such a proposal likely violates the Constitution’s “takings” clause. It’s one of the provisions of the Fifth Amendment; look it up.
OK, for the lazy among you, here’s the relevant passage: “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” Adding such restrictions after the fact devalues existing spectrum rights and thus constitutes a “taking”.
@NormM: Exactly. I wonder where the fear of a government “take-over of health care” comes from. The Public Option is just that – an option. If you can’t afford private health care, public health care will take care of you. The rest get to keep their private insurance, doctor etc. That’s the way it works in every other Western democracy.
Of course, the current American goubment-run system is highly inefficient. But trying to fix that is part of the Health Care Reform, too.
@theloniousmac
Well played sir, well played.
I would like to respond to @formernavelperson but this is a Mac forum. So onto AT&T;. . . no really it’s related! :~)
@PC Appoligist has it right.
See how much I said without saying anything? I should go into politics.
@NormM;
“No other first world country lets tens of thousands of citizens die each year for lack of basic health coverage.”
And “at a fraction of the cost of the US system”.
Oh Puhleeze!
Have you ever been out of your house?
Really?
Ever been to the UK?
Personal taxes
Inheritance taxes
Council Taxes
Excise duties
Stamp duties
Motoring taxation AND
VAT
(For those of you unaware of the “Value Added Tax it’s a highly regressive tax (the poor pay more, as a percentage of their income, than the rich), it’s levied against nearly everything purchased in the UK, and it’s a whopping 17.5%.)
Just because you aren’t paying upfront for your medical treatment around the world, doesn’t mean it’s cheaper.
Have fun with this, for example;
http://business.theatlantic.com/2009/08/taxes_around_the_world.php
If you’re being taxed twice the rate around the world as the US, saying healthcare overseas is cheaper is the same as saying “I don’t believe in air, because I can’t see it”.
Next?
Please show me the bodies stacked to the ceiling, won’t you?
They aren’t there, they don’t exist in the US due to lack of basic health coverage, and to say they do is to invite such comments as Obama received from Congress.
Typical scare tactics, not a shred of truth to them, and they’re sickening
No, government isn’t great at solving problems. However, regulation-free business isn’t exactly free from the screwing people over. How many of us would want to fly on a plane if there weren’t laws requiring maintenance every so many miles?
I wouldn’t.