“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.]
Kudos theloniusMac
@NormM
I hate to spin the topic out of control here, but do you have any idea why it is maybe healthcare is cheaper in these other countries.
1. they force the drug companies to sell new drugs at cheap prices. Subsidized by the extreme prices we Americans pay. If the USA was not supported these prices there would be on heck of a lot less research. That is the problem that needs to be fixed, we need to address the inequity in drug pricing.
2. Rationing care, 6+ month waiting lists for urgent needs, 2+ years waiting lists for non urgent needs.
No Thanks.
I agree that FCC provisions are not valid, especially if they have to do with bittorrent traffic, and as to iphone apps, already said:
http://www.derekunderwood.com/general-computer/law-does-not-support-google-and-fcc-concerns-about-the-app-store/
and ‘require continued private investment
I’d be a LOT happier with more “private investment” by ATT and less executive pay
@NormM
Wow, yea sure I’ll go to Canada for my open heart surgery, no wait how about the UK, I hear they have great rooms in the hallway, no that’s for delivering babies, how about Cuba, no maybe some other examples you can come up with??
I want to take a moment and thank the passionate Republican & Democrat poster we have had here over the past few weeks. Without your off topic spewing of agenda driven propaganda, I would not be so adamant about making sure I vote for ANY independent running for office in future elections.
Thank you!
What is confusing to me is that when conservatives keep paying lip service about not wanting big government, they are precisely the ones that support government initiatives to take away our civil freedoms. Think SS stormtroopers. So weird!
and internet provider complaining about bait and switch….
when was the last time anyone actually achieved the advertised speeds of the internet service they buy? blah, blah, blah, i know, the ads all say “UP TO XXXkbps.”
the ads also don’t mention that you will be throttled if the isp decides that you use “too much” bandwidth. and they all do this.
If AT&T;says so, it must be true. They only want the best for us. AT&T;doesn’t really like money. It operates to benefit the global good.
So bend over and take it. The free market is always right.
MDN word: dead
NormM 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.
The better outcomes is the heart of the debate. You can’t just say “better outcomes” without providing some specific hard evidence.
As far as your statement of “tens of thousands of citizens die every year for lack of health coverage.”
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/FASTATS/deaths.htm
In the US in 2006, approximately 810.4 / 100,000 population died in the year. For a population of about 300 million that’s about 2.4 million per year.
It’s not impossible that some of those 2.4 million died for lack of health coverage, but a certain amount of people are going to die every year, with or without medical care. The life expectancy is listed at 77.7 years, which is higher than 72 years I remember it being when I studied it in school about 20 years ago. So that has gone up by over 5 years.
Even if you can prove your tens of thousands figure, which I doubt you can, that’s at most 1 or 2% of the total deaths in the year.
Death is part of life, and inevitable. Humans are not capable of being immortal, nor have I seen any evidence that we deserve to be.