AT&T: Gaming Not a Core Broadband Service
AT&T: Gaming Not a Core Broadband Service
September 15, 2009
In response to a Federal Communications Commission Public Notice seeking comments on how the term “broadband” should be defined, AT&T labeled gaming as an “aspirational” online service.
While basic web-browsing capabilities and email were termed core services in the brief dated August 31, 2009, gaming was lumped in with streaming video and real-time voice services. AT&T noted:
…for Americans who today have no terrestrial broadband service at all, the pressing concern is not the ability to engage in real-time, two-way gaming, but obtaining meaningful access to the Internet’s resources and to reliable email communications and other basic tools that most of the country has come to expect as a given.
The Entertainment Software Association replied to the FCC on September 9, 2009, taking umbrage with AT&T’s comments. Kenneth L. Doroshow, The ESA’s Senior Vice President and General Counsel stated:
Online video games are a meaningful part of our participative culture. They remove geographic barriers, connecting people from across the country and around the world. They teach cooperation, cultivate leadership skills, and empower users to express their creativity. Increasingly, games are used for training purposes and to educate students about complex social issues. Entertaining does not mean trivial.
A PUBLICATION OF THE ECA
SUBSCRIBE
LOGINGamePolitics ShoutBox
Posted 11/21/09 at 08:16am
ZippyDSMlee: Welcome and goodmorning its zippy in the AM....wat OMG its 8:50AM!!!!
ZippyDSMlee: Welcome and goodmorning its zippy in the AM....wat OMG its 8:50AM!!!!
Posted 11/20/09 at 05:42pm
ZippyDSMlee: oh may the cute stab out your eyes, http://www.youtube.com/user/simonscat
ZippyDSMlee: oh may the cute stab out your eyes, http://www.youtube.com/user/simonscat
Posted 11/20/09 at 05:17pm
JDKJ: O.K. Suit yourself. But when you're wearing Ray-Bans, sitting on a curb with a white cane and a cup of pencils, and doing Stevie Wonder impersonations, don't say I didn't warn you.
JDKJ: O.K. Suit yourself. But when you're wearing Ray-Bans, sitting on a curb with a white cane and a cup of pencils, and doing Stevie Wonder impersonations, don't say I didn't warn you.
Posted 11/20/09 at 05:10pm
ZippyDSMlee: JD:No thank you I don;t want your cooties...or STDs...
ZippyDSMlee: JD:No thank you I don;t want your cooties...or STDs...
Posted 11/20/09 at 05:01pm
JDKJ: Me. I'm rehearsing the role just in case I do get dubbed Zippy The Soecnda.
JDKJ: Me. I'm rehearsing the role just in case I do get dubbed Zippy The Soecnda.
Posted 11/20/09 at 04:59pm
DarkSaber: Wait, is that meant to be Zippy, me or you?
DarkSaber: Wait, is that meant to be Zippy, me or you?
Posted 11/20/09 at 04:49pm
JDKJ: I cud caer lez. =^^= *wakes up in mid-afternoon after staying up until 3:00AM soldering resistors on to circuit boards, stumbles around in formerly white but now grey underwear, while simultaneously scratching groin with vigor and making coffee*
JDKJ: I cud caer lez. =^^= *wakes up in mid-afternoon after staying up until 3:00AM soldering resistors on to circuit boards, stumbles around in formerly white but now grey underwear, while simultaneously scratching groin with vigor and making coffee*
Posted 11/20/09 at 04:46pm
DarkSaber: knell? Don't you mean Neil? Anymore of tht and I'll dub thee Zippy The Soecnda
DarkSaber: knell? Don't you mean Neil? Anymore of tht and I'll dub thee Zippy The Soecnda
Posted 11/20/09 at 04:44pm
JDKJ: Now, now, Saber. Don't be salty. You weren't the first one to knell and bob and you ain't gonna be the last one, either.
JDKJ: Now, now, Saber. Don't be salty. You weren't the first one to knell and bob and you ain't gonna be the last one, either.
Posted 11/20/09 at 04:42pm
DarkSaber: JD's feeling rather desperate it seems.
DarkSaber: JD's feeling rather desperate it seems.
Posted 11/20/09 at 04:33pm
JDKJ: C'mon, Zip. You already touch yourself way too much. Spread the love. Before you go blind.
JDKJ: C'mon, Zip. You already touch yourself way too much. Spread the love. Before you go blind.
Posted 11/20/09 at 04:27pm
ZippyDSMlee: JD:No and I ain't touching any part of you or your friends!! :P
ZippyDSMlee: JD:No and I ain't touching any part of you or your friends!! :P
Posted 11/20/09 at 04:25pm
JDKJ: @Zip: You know Lik Mitaint?
JDKJ: @Zip: You know Lik Mitaint?
Posted 11/20/09 at 04:18pm
ZippyDSMlee: neill and bob,oldest giveing head joke and most lamest...
ZippyDSMlee: neill and bob,oldest giveing head joke and most lamest...
Posted 11/20/09 at 04:18pm
JDKJ: But thanks for the memory. MIB's a classic. *sings* "Here come the Men in Black. Galaxy defenders. Here come the Men in Black. They won't let you remember."
JDKJ: But thanks for the memory. MIB's a classic. *sings* "Here come the Men in Black. Galaxy defenders. Here come the Men in Black. They won't let you remember."
Posted 11/20/09 at 04:18pm
ZippyDSMlee: JD:for the record I told you you can suck your own dck.
ZippyDSMlee: JD:for the record I told you you can suck your own dck.
Posted 11/20/09 at 04:07pm
JDKJ: Naw, man. That's Mueedeegiaap and Bob. And you can stop bobbing. I got Zippy bobbing now, too.
JDKJ: Naw, man. That's Mueedeegiaap and Bob. And you can stop bobbing. I got Zippy bobbing now, too.
Posted 11/20/09 at 03:56pm
DarkSaber: OH I get it now! It's Men In Black quote! The twins that run the comm centre in HQ.
DarkSaber: OH I get it now! It's Men In Black quote! The twins that run the comm centre in HQ.
Posted 11/20/09 at 03:49pm
JDKJ: I'd like to introduce you to them. First, Neil. Then, Bob.
JDKJ: I'd like to introduce you to them. First, Neil. Then, Bob.
Posted 11/20/09 at 03:47pm
ZippyDSMlee: JD:I know they are intimate friends of yours...
ZippyDSMlee: JD:I know they are intimate friends of yours...
Copyright © 2007 ECA. All rights reserved.
Game Politics and Game Politics logo are trademarks of the ECA.
Game Politics and Game Politics logo are trademarks of the ECA.
Comments
Well considering speeds 2000KBPS or higher should be defined as boardband.
Until lobbying is a hanging offense I choose anarchy! Stop supporting big media and furthering the criminalization of consumers!! http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/
Do you really mean 2000KBPS, or 2000 KbPS, which is usually how networking is defined. There's almost an order of magnitude difference there. Case of the B is important, B = bytes, b = bits.
Heck, the router I have can't handle 2000KBPS, it's only 10Mb on the WAN side.
2MBPS is what I mean, currently my DSL is 200kBps, this is not boardband IMO, to future proff the trem you need around 2-5MBPS.
I think its MB or is it mB for 1000kBps?
Until lobbying is a hanging offense I choose anarchy! Stop supporting big media and furthering the criminalization of consumers!! http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/
The case of the B is what matters.
2000 KBPS = 16000 KbPS = 16 Mbps (for comparison, the lowest end network card is 10 Mbps). Think in bits, not bytes for network speed.
Ah so it would be 2000kBps, the counter on utorrent shows it with a large B and 180-200 is the max for my speed. Speed test.net shows 1.5xMbs
The minuim for boardband should be 10 to 20 times faster than what I am getting out here in rual hell.
Until lobbying is a hanging offense I choose anarchy! Stop supporting big media and furthering the criminalization of consumers!! http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/
To give you perspective: The classic "broadband", a T-1 is only 1.5Mbs.
Bandwidth also isn't enough for the definition, latency needs to be included. Driving to blockbuster and snagging a blu-ray is well, well over your 2000KBPS. Want to try streaming or game playing with that time lag?
What's with this new font? It is not as friendly and easy to read as the one used in previous entries. New editor, new font?
We are all going to die someday. The trick is not to rush it.
Might take a bit for the new EIC to get used to the format of the posts.
I thought that the font looked different...
-If an apple a day keeps the doctor away....what happens when a doctor eats an apple?-
I see, AT&T sees internet gaming as meaningless...
They see it as 'aspirational'.
Personally, I see it as 'non-essential'. Yeah, being able to play games over broadband is great, but it isn't an essential component of life.
As I mentioned in my other post, this isn't about actually defining basic services.
This is about ruining the definition of broadband so that they don't have to provided affordable basic broadband service like they are supposed to by law.
It's just as important as "basic web browsing" or "sending emails." Seriously, fucking emails compared to gaming? Emails don't need nearly as many resources yet are allocated more? THAT is bullcrap.
Whoa, I don't mean to sound mad or anything, lol. For some reason my "rant" switch is switched half-on today, heh.
-If an apple a day keeps the doctor away....what happens when a doctor eats an apple?-
I don't think that they're saying it should be allocated more resources. I think what they're saying is that, since gaming in the grand scheme of broadband isn't "vital," they should be allowed to market a slower broadband as their primary service, one that wouldn't do well for gaming, per se, but would be ideal for basic web browsing and e-mail. Granted, this is basically dial-up, but that's where I see this going.
---
He was dead when I got here.
Gaming, compared to the vast majority of services, is not bandwidth intensive.
It is latency and loss sensitive.
This is simply about neutering the meaning of the term broadband and making their affordable options the government requires them to provide less useful.
Quite the contrary.
AT&T wants to may you pay as much as possible for a broadband connection that can play games.
If online gaming is not a "basic service" then they can once again reduce the rates of the federally mandated low cost basic broadband option they must offer to all customers, then they can drop the speed on those connections again and force people to upgrade if they want to play games.
AT&T see's internet gaming to be worth quite a bit, maybe 30 or 40 dollars a month.
see but I could stream movies (not very well) and play games on my old 56k dial-up, why now that we are all moving to broadband should I have to pay more to do the same things?
On the flip side, my household was paying a large amount of money every month to AT&T for a small business DSL account because we recognized that we needed more then just a basic package, an option that they then took away saying we could no longer have a 7mbps line and the best they could do was a 3mbps but that costs extra and our plan would be moved to a 1.5mbps service. You can imagine how well that went over.
~Weatherlight~
A clean 56k line with good latency and not much loss is actually fine for many gaming applications.
However you never see those.
I still can get one with low latency because the local "Dial-up hub" (for lack of knowing what to call it), is about 2 blocks away from my house.
~Weatherlight~
I don’t think any telecommunication or cable companies with there services like the fact that more and more does Gaming require so much bandwidth and usage.
Gaming atleast in my experience is not bandwidth intensive, however it is latency and loss sensitive.
Currently this is true, but some games (mostly just MMOs) are experimenting with models that stream the immediate game world to you so you don't have to install much. Plus things such as OnLive will further change this.
I take umbrage at you suggesting piracy as a means to fight back against DRM. That is a twisted way of thinking and only makes things worse. You know how you fight against DRM schemes that you don't like? Don't buy games with it in them.
Awww and here I was hoping for the new EIC to open with some real slash and burn take no prisoners thrashing of the anti-game crowd. What do you we get instead? Commentary on "Core Broadband Service." *Yawwwn*
Nahh, just yanking the new guy's chain.
I guess this kind of makes sense, putting games in with streaming video. Games can obviously fit in with other "entertainment uses." But the idea that gaming or even video isn't a core broadband service and is somehow auxilliary kind of ignores trends in the industry.
This might be a prelude to a marketing push towards the business crowd though. If AT&T plans to focus on the business crowd they would obviously want to play down non-business applications.
As if that's any kinda substitute for articles on Jack Thompson, RapeLay, race, homosexuality, frivolous lawsuits, or anything containing the word "Obama." *yank, yank*
Also, don't forget the pedophilia-related articles. Where everyone replaces "child-molester" with "pedophile" (there is a HUGE difference here, people!) and the story has basically nothing to do with gaming.
-If an apple a day keeps the doctor away....what happens when a doctor eats an apple?-
But if the pedophile was caught lurking three blocks away from a GameStop, it kinda sorta qualifies.
This just in: government funding study to find out if breathing oxygen leads to higher rates of pedophilia in adults. Every arrested child molestor has been found to be an air-breather, and this is highly suspected to be a contributor to liking small children.
-If an apple a day keeps the doctor away....what happens when a doctor eats an apple?-
I actually posted on the DRM subject over on my blog at gametrailers.com a few days ago. It's long but I'm gonna re-post it here since it basically somes up my most recent take on this subject.
No person shall be...deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.
~ United States Constitution Amendment V, applied to the states via the 14th Amendment ~
Read that very carefully, no person shall be deprived of property without due process of law, interesting isn't it?
No consider the following example, you purchase a video via PlayStation Network, you can download it ONCE to your system, it is then TIED to the that system.
Need to delete it to save space? You gotta pay to download it again.
Decide to buy a PS3 Slim? Sorry, you can't take those files with you, they're tied to the system.
Now yes, Sony will, as a gesture of goodwill allow to re-download your purchased videos ONCE if you ask. Kudos to them. But they are under no legal obligation to do so...or are they?
No person shall be deprived of property without due process of law.
What would you call telling someone Sorry, you no longer have access to that perfectly legal purchased video.
If I buy a new DVD player, all my old DVD's don't suddenly stop working do they?
Any major company with a DRM scheme justifies these kind of restrictions on a series of laws (such as the DMCA) that seemingly give them the power, the ability, and the right, to tell you that you can no longer use your property.
Where it be through install limits, download limits, or server check-backs, they get to decide whether you get to use your property period. Bought a game that has to call home every time you play it? Sorry, cost considerations forced us to shut down our authentication servers, guess that game is now useless.
No person shall be deprived of property without due process of law.
But wait, the argument goes, that Constitutional prohibition applies to the government not private enterprises.
Very good, you're correct. But like I said before, the power to do this is resting on copyright protection LAWS. If those laws weren't in place the legal ground for restricting property in this way is much, MUCH shakier.
Those laws seem to blatantly violate the 5th Amendment. They say its ok to tell someone they can't use their property anymore and the Courts have said that making property fundamentally useless is the same as taking it or depriving a person of it.
But the Constitution says its the Supreme Law of the Land, no law which conflicts with it can stand, no law which conflicts with it is valid. Laws which conflict with the Constitution are VOID.
No person shall be deprived of property without due process of law.
Now THERE'S an argument I'd LOVE to see someone raise in Court one day.
You're honor, what we have here are two laws. One which says you CANNOT deprive someone of property without due process and another which AUTHORIZES the deprivation of property on a whim with no process whatsoever. These laws say the exact polar opposite of each other. But one of them is the Constitution. The laws upon which these companies justify their draconian copy-protection and DRM schemes are BLATANTLY Unconstitutional, they cannot stand.
No person shall be deprived of property without due process of law.
That says it all right there folks.
@Ol' Doc Kefka:
Your mouth's like a Pandora's Box, better left unopened.
Learn to use the threading system properly before you criticize someone else.
And if I choose not to, what are you gonna do about that? Make me learn?
'But the Constitution says its the Supreme Law of the Land, no law which conflicts with it can stand, no law which conflicts with it is valid. Laws which conflict with the Constitution are VOID.'
To my knowledge, this is not actually true.
Also, what exactly are you buying when you purchase that video from the PSN? Are you buying as many copies of the media as you could want (such as happens with Steam), or are you buying one copy of the video, which you are then responsible for, much in the same manner as a physical video or game cartridge?
Article VI: The "Supremacy Clause"
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."
In application through precedent the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that this clause has been held to mean that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land and that laws which openly conflict with it are unconstitutional, invalid and without force.
While it is true that you may be buying one copy of that video, I again analogize to a DVD. When you buy a DVD it doesn't suddenly stop working if you change your DVD player.
That's basically what Sony is saying "If your player breaks your media breaks." That's taking away your property because a DIFFERENT piece of property broke.
Obviously it isn't a perfect analogy, but Sony is saying you've "purchased" that content which is a transfer of OWNERSHIP. But can you be said to own something when your use of it is totally dependent on the continued sufferance of a third party? That sounds like a rental/lease/loan to me, not a purchase.
I believe the traditional example of the limits of Constitutional supremecy is shouting 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre.
Edit: Also, if your VCR fails and eats the tape, do you expect someone to replace it for you?
Depending on why the VCR broke, it could be a small claims suit to get the video replaced/refunded. There is no reason why the data on the PS3 shouldn't be able to be removed and put onto a different PS3 like a DVD or VHS.
-If an apple a day keeps the doctor away....what happens when a doctor eats an apple?-
I can't even respond to nightstalker repeatedly and boldly stating that "No person shall be deprived of property without due process of law" and premising his argument upon this until he distinguishes between procedural due process and substantive due process, both of which are required by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments but require completely different analyses.
Although I suspect, regardless of which type of due process he's talking about, that his arguments fail. Certainly none of his examples depict a deprivation of property - at least not as contemplated by the requirements of due process.
I just copied and pasted the blog entry which was written more for effect that argument, I guess I should have edited it, oh well, I'm sure you're intelligent enough to read around it.
Substantive Due Process is something of a dead doctrine outside of three distinct areas:
1. The Bill of Rights
2. Restrictions on the Political Process
3. Discrimination against discreet and insular minorities
Obviously my argument isn't based on restrictions of the political process or minority discrimination (unless you count gamers as a "discreet and insular minority.")
The issue that what we are dealing with here are laws which authorize private entities to take away the use of someone's property without compensation and without any method of appeal or review. The company MAY create on their own a system of review or appeal but they are authorized to say "We take this away from you, too bad."
Now, I'm not saying that a private company doesn't have this right. Due process does not apply to wholly private enterprises. My argument is to attack the laws that have simply said "You can do this."
The company may be able to justify this action on independent grounds. Frankly, these laws could be cured by simply mandating the creation of a review process, it wouldn't be that hard. But as the laws stand right now there is no mandated ability of consumers to fight the removal of their access to their digital property.
Alternatively, the companies could simply be up-front and say "You aren't buying this, no ownership of the actual file is being transfered. You are purchasing access, we still own the file." But that isn't the way these things read now, words such as "own," and "purchase" indicate a transfer of ownership. If you're going to transfer ownership of a file to me then removing my ability to PLAY it is a deprivation of my property. Useless property is taken property.
You might be right that my arguments fail. Of course, the "Blacks are citizens" argument failed for a long time too. The law changes and issues of digital ownership and the rights of people regarding digital files which they purchase are a fairly new realm and the issues surrounding them are in a high state of flux.
IMO and I feel I can make a decent legal argument laws which authorize private entities to take away property are unconstitutional. The government cannot authorize violations of the Constitution. Again, the due process requirement does not DIRECTLY apply to the companies, they may have solely independent and perfectly fine grounds for deprivation. But they should not be permitted to use laws which authorize the direct and complete deprivation or property because such laws are not Constitutional.
It's a round about attack on the laws not the direct behavior. I'm attempting more the require the companies to justify their actions rather than simply citing the DMCA or whatever law as allowing it.
Right now companies are being called to justify their policies because they never get that far, they simply point to the authorizing statute and the case ends. But if those statutes weren't there suddenly they have to actually justify their arguments.
In addition, once you get past that you get into some pretty thorny property and contract laws issues. For example, how much can a company restrict your ability to use a product and still claim they have "sold" (i.e. transfered ownership) to you?
At what point is it fraudulent or dishonest to claim you are getting ownership of something? That's still a fairly open question, but right now it's not talked about because of these laws.
If I "sold" you a piece of land but reserved to myself the right to control your access to it, the right to take it back if I wanted to, the right to control how you use it, your right to transfer it to someone else, etc etc. at what point would you say "Hey, you said you sold me this! But all I can do is stand on it on Tuesdays from 3-4. You didn't really 'sell' me it."
"Useless property is taken property." Really? I ain't so sure about that. If you accepted the property with certain uselessness inherent, then how have you been deprived of property? Doesn't a "deprivation" require that you start out with "something" and somehow end up with less than that "something?"
Not necessarily. The Courts have held that if a governmental action renders your property completely valueless that it has been "taken."
Now that's a touch standard to reach. I never said this was a fool-proof or easy argument to make. Arguably that file still has some use. But I think you can make a decent argument at least that rendering a file completely useless to you renders it valueless.
You can't play, you can't transfer it to someone who CAN play it (since its been disabled by the company). All it can do is sit on your hard-drive and take up space (which actually may render it LESS than useless and actually turn it into something that actually 'damages' you.)
The operative word is "renders." Which means that the property had a value before the government action. Therefore, in this example there is diminishment and a taking. But if the property was without value before the government action . . . .
So a working digital file is without value? Value is not limited to solely monetary value nor is it limited to your ability to obtain value via a transfer to another.
Value is best thought of as use. The rendering takes place at the moment a digital file which you own and play and derive enjoyment from no longer functions.
You obviously assume a certain level of risk from file corruption, hard drive crash, accidental deletion etc. But simply because you change systems (a normal and easily foreseeable occurrence) Sony has decided that you no longer have a right to play your legitimately purchased content absent a "gesture of goodwill" by them (which they are under no obligation to take). Therefore, items which you paid money for are now no longer have any use.
Again I'll analogize to a DVD player. If you purchase a DVD it continues to function even if you change DVD players. But now you can't change your player because then content which you have "purchased" will no longer function absent a non-mandatory "Goodwill gesture."
If when you acquired your widget it had uses X, Y, and Z but, subsequently, someone or something with the support of the government reduced its usefulness to X only, then I can see the "taking" argument. But if your widget only had use X from the get-go, then I don't see the taking based on the subsequent claim that it can't also be used for Y and Z. There's no diminishment if it can't now be used for Y and Z because from the get-go, it never could.
I assume that a large portion of broadband customers buy it for gaming. Other than businesses, what the hell does grandma need broadband for?
AT&T is showing their hand as not being a customer-oriented company. Who cares if some suit thinks gaming is inconsequential? Their effing customers want it!
Grandma needs it so she can get all the patches for her Antivirus, Vista Updates, and ADware patches.
My grandfathers PC was sitting on about a gb of windows fixes that his dialup connection couldn't handle. Then his emails backed up. Until we got him a broadband he couldn't use his computer anymore.
Not to mention computers are no longer designed to work well with a Dial up connection, they are meant for a Broadband connection (see Vista), which will not play nice with dial-up even if you get all the updates from elsewhere.
~Weatherlight~
Come on, you know Granny wants to level her Paladin.
Didn't Pally's get nerfed a LONG time ago?
---
He was dead when I got here.
Pallys are still quite overpowered and have been given some buffs, they're still FOTM, my grandma has two.
Broadband should account for all basic services from the web and streaming of all kinds So you need a high minimum speed of around 2000-10000 kBps.
Until lobbying is a hanging offense I choose anarchy! Stop supporting big media and furthering the criminalization of consumers!! http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/
The way I figure describing broadband is pretty simple. Being it is made up of two parts, broad, a relative description of width, and bandwidth. So the only thing that should go into defining broadband should be the amount of bandwidth it takes to be considered broad.Services should not alter this.
If they just take the average bandwidth of personal consumers across the country, broadband would be anything 10% above the average(or whatever non arbitrary percentage was agreed upon). If everyone's average was 5Mb, then you would have to be more than 5Mb to be broad, otherwise you are just normal. This would also make it self updating, cause every year you would take a new average, and can adjust what the mark to be considered broadband.
Considering that I have AT&T DSL at the house and I pay for more then then minimum broadband package so I can play games and stream video, I would like to say I find this upsetting, but if you ever call them to try and fix an internet issue or complain about the speed (aka speed testing <100kbps on a 6mbps line), there comments are along the line of: If you can pull up the AT&T site to pay your bill they don't care.
~Weatherlight~
Shrug. Its not like AT&T hasnt pulled boned headed stunts before. Remember back a few years to the bad old days of Dial-up. AT&T claimed that 56 kpbs modems and through-put put to much stain on thier routers and systems and managed to get it capped to 33.6 kbps.
Not exactly user friendly.
Nor btw are they the Devil or the only ones trying to tap into the money from online gaming and such. Then again they are not the only online service nor in truth even control a sizeable share of the market, so flip they the one fingered salute and move on.
They were once all but a monopoly then got broken up and have never recovered, it got worse with the introduction of affordable cell phones and their market share shrank even more. Greed is at the heart of this (most know this of course) and vain dreams/memories of yesteryear.
Let them sell DSL (ie let them eat cake)
Dear AT&T,
As far as the architecture of the Internet is concerned there's really no such thing as core and non-core services. You say the pressing concern is "obtaining meaningful access to the Internet’s resources" but somehow exclude streaming video, voice services and gaming from your definition of "the Internet's resources". That's just sleight of hand on your part to make allowances for the possibility of substandard service for all but the least demanding uses of broadband connections.
Pathetic. Online gaming and streaming videos are the only reason why i have broadband. AT&T is full of themselves.
http://www.magicinkgaming.com/
The ECA is gathering your definitions of the word "broadband" to submit to the FCC. The FCC has also asked how you'd redefine "broadband" as technologies change. You can take part and submit your answer at http://action.theeca.com/t/2858/questionnaire.jsp?questionnaire_KEY=268.
Brett Schenker
Online Advocacy Manager
the ECA
www.theeca.com
at least AT&T internet doesnt have bandwidth caps yet.
Nah, they just increased their prices for the basic and mid-level service. :P Nevermind they already make a significant profit off the majority of users. I'm sure the reason they rose the price of the mid-level speed to being only five bucks less than the "Elite" service is because they know it would make it look more attractive to spend the extra five bucks and thus, again for the average person they'll be making even more.
at&t u-verse internet has faster speeds beyond elite but they start getting closer to comcast price point
True but U-Verse isn't even close to being as widely available.
Maybe I'm a bit confused but what exactly does AT&T do with the "non core" services?
Two words AT&T will be saying soon when the backlash occurs:
Oh shiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit!
Still beats Comcast, which disconnects you at intermittent times. That has never happened with my current AT&T service.
It's better to have steady connections at a lower average speed than it is to have connections that at points are very fast, but have a greater range in speed fluctuation.
Mispost
Wouldn't defining traffic by type cause a delay on services anyway, since it adds an extra layer to the Networking system? That would, as I understand it, mean that, at some point in the routing, the header would need to be unpacked and redirected according to the data-type? You do that on an Internet scale and I would have thought it'd lead to slower Internet for everyone involved, regardless of what they are doing?
I may have misunderstood the intention here, but I thought the whole idea behind getting the Internet working at best speed would be optimsation, not extra layers of abstraction?
The new editor pwns, GP seems much more professional and legit already.
http://www.eliteownage.com/nice
No offense to the new GP but how is he already more professional and legit after one article?
Andrew Eisen
Apparently this guy has some deep seated hatred against Dennis and was just waiting for the opportunity to nonsensically slam him.
I await him responding to your questions in several weeks when this comment thread is dead and thus appearing to have the last word.
AT&T doesn't seem to value the income that would be lost by not supporting gaming, forcing gamers to invest in other ISPs.
Perhaps AT&T, as Yahtzee might put it, has a secret fear of profit and success.
I don't think you understand exactly what I'm saying.
I'm not talking about the value of the SYSTEM I'm talking about the value of the FILE itself.
You're right, a new system not being able to play old files doesn't count.
But I paid $15 for ownership of a file and now that perfectly good file no longer plays because a company decided I should no longer have the right to play the file I have been deprived of all usefulness of that file.
plug for gamepolitics: http://www.gamelobbyist.net/archives/116
www.thelobbyist.net
The Corporatese to English translation follows:
"We at AT&T believe that online gaming is an untapped and hugely profitable revenue source for us. To protect our shareholders' profits we feel that it's in our best interest to frame the discussion in such a manner that would allow us bilking our online gaming customers for all they're worth in the future. We appreciate the opportunity to be greedy bastards."
-- http://pixelantes.blogspot.com/