AT&T's Filters, Lies & Financial Statements

"AT&T argues that it must get involved in stopping the flow of pirated
content because much of this content is shared using peer-to-peer protocols,
which eats up valuable network bandwidth, slowing network connections for
many of its customers." -
http://www.news.com/Should-ATT-polic...3-6226523.html

Really?

AT&T has never even tried a metered solution. Why not charge people for the
amount of bandwidth that they use? That's fair (even if unpopular among us
P2P users).

"I can't see why filtering traffic would be of interest to AT&T," said Tim
Wu, a law professor at Columbia University and an Internet pundit. "AT&T
spent six years and millions of dollars lobbying for a law so they wouldn't
have to filter for copyrighted material on their network. And now they want
to do it."

I'll tell you why. They make more money keeping people in the dark. They
make more money off the backs of lemmings who pay for a 3Mb/s DSL line to
check email and text message their friends than they would if the users were
actually told how much bandwidth they were using and charged accordingly.

This isn't about bandwidth usage. If it were, they'd adopt a metered
solution or simply invest just a tiny portion of their $11.951 BILLION in
net profits for 2007 in a higher speed network. After all, if Charter can
invent a 150 MB/s cable modem, surely AT&T can get us to 15 MB/s.....can't
they?

To further understand the disingenuousness (is that a word?) of AT&T's
comments, just look at their financials.

Instead of innovating and investing some of their ~$12 BILLION NET PROFIT in
2007 in higher bandwidth technologies and networks (like the 33Mb/s common
lines in homes in Japan) AT&T wants to cut service while maintaining rates.
(Look under Financials>Net Income>2007(Annual) at
http://finance.google.com/finance?q=NYSE:T to see their ~$12 BILLION of
*reported* profits for yourself.)

Isn't there something illegal about selling me a 3Mb/s DSL line, and then
throttling it so that I am not getting the 3Mb/s I am paying for?

I think it is. In fact, I am going to talk to some attorneys tomorrow and
just see if any of them are interested in looking into a class action
lawsuit to "stem the flow" of this behavior by AT&T and others.

I can't be sure, but I'm sure at least one of them would jump at the chance
to look into it. What attorney wouldn't?

What do ya think? ~$12 BILLION in profits, but the lines are overburdened?
REALLY? And what will they want us to buy into next?

jim

Seems like you have too much time on your hands. Who really cares what AT&T
will do. We are here in the vista.general group for fun and entertainment,
not to worry about what AT&T does.

YAWN.

Now go reformat your PC and install Ubuntu.

Just FYI

"jim" <> wrote in message
news:3n9oj.86318$L%. ..
> "AT&T argues that it must get involved in stopping the flow of pirated
> content because much of this content is shared using peer-to-peer
> protocols, which eats up valuable network bandwidth, slowing network
> connections for many of its customers." -
> http://www.news.com/Should-ATT-polic...3-6226523.html
>
> Really?
>
> AT&T has never even tried a metered solution. Why not charge people for
> the amount of bandwidth that they use? That's fair (even if unpopular
> among us P2P users).
>
> "I can't see why filtering traffic would be of interest to AT&T," said Tim
> Wu, a law professor at Columbia University and an Internet pundit. "AT&T
> spent six years and millions of dollars lobbying for a law so they
> wouldn't have to filter for copyrighted material on their network. And now
> they want to do it."
>
> I'll tell you why. They make more money keeping people in the dark. They
> make more money off the backs of lemmings who pay for a 3Mb/s DSL line to
> check email and text message their friends than they would if the users
> were actually told how much bandwidth they were using and charged
> accordingly.
>
> This isn't about bandwidth usage. If it were, they'd adopt a metered
> solution or simply invest just a tiny portion of their $11.951 BILLION in
> net profits for 2007 in a higher speed network. After all, if Charter can
> invent a 150 MB/s cable modem, surely AT&T can get us to 15 MB/s.....can't
> they?
>
> To further understand the disingenuousness (is that a word?) of AT&T's
> comments, just look at their financials.
>
> Instead of innovating and investing some of their ~$12 BILLION NET PROFIT
> in 2007 in higher bandwidth technologies and networks (like the 33Mb/s
> common lines in homes in Japan) AT&T wants to cut service while
> maintaining rates. (Look under Financials>Net Income>2007(Annual) at
> http://finance.google.com/finance?q=NYSE:T to see their ~$12 BILLION of
> *reported* profits for yourself.)
>
> Isn't there something illegal about selling me a 3Mb/s DSL line, and then
> throttling it so that I am not getting the 3Mb/s I am paying for?
>
> I think it is. In fact, I am going to talk to some attorneys tomorrow and
> just see if any of them are interested in looking into a class action
> lawsuit to "stem the flow" of this behavior by AT&T and others.
>
> I can't be sure, but I'm sure at least one of them would jump at the
> chance to look into it. What attorney wouldn't?
>
> What do ya think? ~$12 BILLION in profits, but the lines are overburdened?
> REALLY? And what will they want us to buy into next?
>
> jim
>
>

I agree. It's more like a blog anyway.

"Kevpan Wackinstein" <> wrote in message
news:eU$...
> Seems like you have too much time on your hands. Who really cares what
> AT&T will do. We are here in the vista.general group for fun and
> entertainment, not to worry about what AT&T does.
>
> YAWN.
>
> Now go reformat your PC and install Ubuntu.
>
> Just FYI
>
> "jim" <> wrote in message
> news:3n9oj.86318$L%. ..
>> "AT&T argues that it must get involved in stopping the flow of pirated
>> content because much of this content is shared using peer-to-peer
>> protocols, which eats up valuable network bandwidth, slowing network
>> connections for many of its customers." -
>> http://www.news.com/Should-ATT-polic...3-6226523.html
>>
>> Really?
>>
>> AT&T has never even tried a metered solution. Why not charge people for
>> the amount of bandwidth that they use? That's fair (even if unpopular
>> among us P2P users).
>>
>> "I can't see why filtering traffic would be of interest to AT&T," said
>> Tim Wu, a law professor at Columbia University and an Internet pundit.
>> "AT&T spent six years and millions of dollars lobbying for a law so they
>> wouldn't have to filter for copyrighted material on their network. And
>> now they want to do it."
>>
>> I'll tell you why. They make more money keeping people in the dark. They
>> make more money off the backs of lemmings who pay for a 3Mb/s DSL line to
>> check email and text message their friends than they would if the users
>> were actually told how much bandwidth they were using and charged
>> accordingly.
>>
>> This isn't about bandwidth usage. If it were, they'd adopt a metered
>> solution or simply invest just a tiny portion of their $11.951 BILLION in
>> net profits for 2007 in a higher speed network. After all, if Charter
>> can invent a 150 MB/s cable modem, surely AT&T can get us to 15
>> MB/s.....can't they?
>>
>> To further understand the disingenuousness (is that a word?) of AT&T's
>> comments, just look at their financials.
>>
>> Instead of innovating and investing some of their ~$12 BILLION NET PROFIT
>> in 2007 in higher bandwidth technologies and networks (like the 33Mb/s
>> common lines in homes in Japan) AT&T wants to cut service while
>> maintaining rates. (Look under Financials>Net Income>2007(Annual) at
>> http://finance.google.com/finance?q=NYSE:T to see their ~$12 BILLION of
>> *reported* profits for yourself.)
>>
>> Isn't there something illegal about selling me a 3Mb/s DSL line, and then
>> throttling it so that I am not getting the 3Mb/s I am paying for?
>>
>> I think it is. In fact, I am going to talk to some attorneys tomorrow and
>> just see if any of them are interested in looking into a class action
>> lawsuit to "stem the flow" of this behavior by AT&T and others.
>>
>> I can't be sure, but I'm sure at least one of them would jump at the
>> chance to look into it. What attorney wouldn't?
>>
>> What do ya think? ~$12 BILLION in profits, but the lines are
>> overburdened? REALLY? And what will they want us to buy into next?
>>
>> jim
>>
>>
>

On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 18:09:54 -0800, Kevpan Wackinstein wrote:

> Seems like you have too much time on your hands. Who really cares what AT&T
> will do. We are here in the vista.general group for fun and entertainment,
> not to worry about what AT&T does.
>
> YAWN.
>
> Now go reformat your PC and install Ubuntu.
>
> Just FYI

Most of the Linux advocates in COLA DO have a lot of time on their hands
(amongst other stuff), becuase they are either unemployed or professional
students, like Roy "Spammer" Schestowitz, or Spammy as we call him over in
comp.os.linux.advocacy.

BTW

Ubuntu was last weeks distribution.
This week it's Fedora.

Just thought you might want to know

"jim" <> wrote in message
news:3n9oj.86318$L%. ..
> "AT&T argues that it must get involved in stopping the flow of pirated
> content because much of this content is shared using peer-to-peer
> protocols, which eats up valuable network bandwidth, slowing network
> connections for many of its customers." -
> http://www.news.com/Should-ATT-polic...3-6226523.html
>
> Really?
>
> AT&T has never even tried a metered solution. Why not charge people for
> the amount of bandwidth that they use? That's fair (even if unpopular
> among us P2P users).
>
> "I can't see why filtering traffic would be of interest to AT&T," said
> Tim Wu, a law professor at Columbia University and an Internet pundit.
> "AT&T spent six years and millions of dollars lobbying for a law so they
> wouldn't have to filter for copyrighted material on their network. And
> now they want to do it."
>
> I'll tell you why. They make more money keeping people in the dark. They
> make more money off the backs of lemmings who pay for a 3Mb/s DSL line to
> check email and text message their friends than they would if the users
> were actually told how much bandwidth they were using and charged
> accordingly.
>
> This isn't about bandwidth usage. If it were, they'd adopt a metered
> solution or simply invest just a tiny portion of their $11.951 BILLION in
> net profits for 2007 in a higher speed network. After all, if Charter
> can invent a 150 MB/s cable modem, surely AT&T can get us to 15
> MB/s.....can't they?
>
> To further understand the disingenuousness (is that a word?) of AT&T's
> comments, just look at their financials.
>
> Instead of innovating and investing some of their ~$12 BILLION NET PROFIT
> in 2007 in higher bandwidth technologies and networks (like the 33Mb/s
> common lines in homes in Japan) AT&T wants to cut service while
> maintaining rates. (Look under Financials>Net Income>2007(Annual) at
> http://finance.google.com/finance?q=NYSE:T to see their ~$12 BILLION of
> *reported* profits for yourself.)
>
> Isn't there something illegal about selling me a 3Mb/s DSL line, and then
> throttling it so that I am not getting the 3Mb/s I am paying for?
>
> I think it is. In fact, I am going to talk to some attorneys tomorrow and
> just see if any of them are interested in looking into a class action
> lawsuit to "stem the flow" of this behavior by AT&T and others.
>
> I can't be sure, but I'm sure at least one of them would jump at the
> chance to look into it. What attorney wouldn't?
>
> What do ya think? ~$12 BILLION in profits, but the lines are
> overburdened? REALLY? And what will they want us to buy into next?
>
> jim
>
>

Yeah - go talk to your lawyer. Tell him your screwball COLA theory of why
they should be sued . Being a lawyer can be hard work. I'm sure he'll
appreciate the good laugh.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"Moshe Goldfarb" <> wrote in message
news:1nz9pjhibyjk0$.1322jirnrnhfm$.. ..
> On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 18:09:54 -0800, Kevpan Wackinstein wrote:
>
>> Seems like you have too much time on your hands. Who really cares what
>> AT&T
>> will do. We are here in the vista.general group for fun and
>> entertainment,
>> not to worry about what AT&T does.
>>
>> YAWN.
>>
>> Now go reformat your PC and install Ubuntu.
>>
>> Just FYI

So, what happens when Microsoft approaches AT&T and says that Linux is
infringing on its patents and pays AT&T to "shape" traffic to block Linux
newsgroups, websites, downloads and even PCs running Linux?

MS has already been waving the patent baton and persuading others like
Novell to get in line with it's vision. It'd not such a large step to see
Microaoft taking a page from the RIAA Gestopo's manual and trying to block
all things Linux because it feels its patents are being infringed.

You'd better stand up for Net Neutrality while you still can - or you may be
using Windows to access the net too.

jim

On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 22:25:32 -0500, jim wrote:

> "Moshe Goldfarb" <> wrote in message
> news:1nz9pjhibyjk0$.1322jirnrnhfm$.. ..
>> On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 18:09:54 -0800, Kevpan Wackinstein wrote:
>>
>>> Seems like you have too much time on your hands. Who really cares what
>>> AT&T
>>> will do. We are here in the vista.general group for fun and
>>> entertainment,
>>> not to worry about what AT&T does.
>>>
>>> YAWN.
>>>
>>> Now go reformat your PC and install Ubuntu.
>>>
>>> Just FYI
>
> So, what happens when Microsoft approaches AT&T and says that Linux is
> infringing on its patents and pays AT&T to "shape" traffic to block Linux
> newsgroups, websites, downloads and even PCs running Linux?
>
> MS has already been waving the patent baton and persuading others like
> Novell to get in line with it's vision. It'd not such a large step to see
> Microaoft taking a page from the RIAA Gestopo's manual and trying to block
> all things Linux because it feels its patents are being infringed.
>
> You'd better stand up for Net Neutrality while you still can - or you may be
> using Windows to access the net too.
>
> jim

Yo Jim, I didn't say any of the above.

"Moshe Goldfarb" <> wrote in message
news:1h88ouhnof4h4.n58z3ildbjcj$....
> On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 22:25:32 -0500, jim wrote:
>
>> "Moshe Goldfarb" <> wrote in message
>> news:1nz9pjhibyjk0$.1322jirnrnhfm$.. ..
>>> On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 18:09:54 -0800, Kevpan Wackinstein wrote:
>>>
>>>> Seems like you have too much time on your hands. Who really cares what
>>>> AT&T
>>>> will do. We are here in the vista.general group for fun and
>>>> entertainment,
>>>> not to worry about what AT&T does.
>>>>
>>>> YAWN.
>>>>
>>>> Now go reformat your PC and install Ubuntu.
>>>>
>>>> Just FYI
>>
>> So, what happens when Microsoft approaches AT&T and says that Linux is
>> infringing on its patents and pays AT&T to "shape" traffic to block Linux
>> newsgroups, websites, downloads and even PCs running Linux?
>>
>> MS has already been waving the patent baton and persuading others like
>> Novell to get in line with it's vision. It'd not such a large step to
>> see
>> Microaoft taking a page from the RIAA Gestopo's manual and trying to
>> block
>> all things Linux because it feels its patents are being infringed.
>>
>> You'd better stand up for Net Neutrality while you still can - or you may
>> be
>> using Windows to access the net too.
>>
>> jim
>
> Yo Jim, I didn't say any of the above.

I apologize - that post was to be directed at Kevpan Wackinstein - the
poster of those comments.

I blame 2 hours sleep and a working keyboard.

jim

On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 22:37:18 -0500, jim wrote:

> "Moshe Goldfarb" <> wrote in message
> news:1h88ouhnof4h4.n58z3ildbjcj$....
>> On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 22:25:32 -0500, jim wrote:
>>
>>> "Moshe Goldfarb" <> wrote in message
>>> news:1nz9pjhibyjk0$.1322jirnrnhfm$.. ..
>>>> On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 18:09:54 -0800, Kevpan Wackinstein wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Seems like you have too much time on your hands. Who really cares what
>>>>> AT&T
>>>>> will do. We are here in the vista.general group for fun and
>>>>> entertainment,
>>>>> not to worry about what AT&T does.
>>>>>
>>>>> YAWN.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now go reformat your PC and install Ubuntu.
>>>>>
>>>>> Just FYI
>>>
>>> So, what happens when Microsoft approaches AT&T and says that Linux is
>>> infringing on its patents and pays AT&T to "shape" traffic to block Linux
>>> newsgroups, websites, downloads and even PCs running Linux?
>>>
>>> MS has already been waving the patent baton and persuading others like
>>> Novell to get in line with it's vision. It'd not such a large step to
>>> see
>>> Microaoft taking a page from the RIAA Gestopo's manual and trying to
>>> block
>>> all things Linux because it feels its patents are being infringed.
>>>
>>> You'd better stand up for Net Neutrality while you still can - or you may
>>> be
>>> using Windows to access the net too.
>>>
>>> jim
>>
>> Yo Jim, I didn't say any of the above.
>
> I apologize - that post was to be directed at Kevpan Wackinstein - the
> poster of those comments.
>
> I blame 2 hours sleep and a working keyboard.
>
> jim

No sweat!

"jim" <> wrote in message
news:tnboj.86374$L%. ..
>
> "Moshe Goldfarb" <> wrote in message
> news:1h88ouhnof4h4.n58z3ildbjcj$....
>> On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 22:25:32 -0500, jim wrote:
>>
>>> "Moshe Goldfarb" <> wrote in message
>>> news:1nz9pjhibyjk0$.1322jirnrnhfm$.. ..
>>>> On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 18:09:54 -0800, Kevpan Wackinstein wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Seems like you have too much time on your hands. Who really cares
>>>>> what
>>>>> AT&T
>>>>> will do. We are here in the vista.general group for fun and
>>>>> entertainment,
>>>>> not to worry about what AT&T does.
>>>>>
>>>>> YAWN.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now go reformat your PC and install Ubuntu.
>>>>>
>>>>> Just FYI
>>>
>>> So, what happens when Microsoft approaches AT&T and says that Linux is
>>> infringing on its patents and pays AT&T to "shape" traffic to block
>>> Linux
>>> newsgroups, websites, downloads and even PCs running Linux?
>>>
>>> MS has already been waving the patent baton and persuading others like
>>> Novell to get in line with it's vision. It'd not such a large step to
>>> see
>>> Microaoft taking a page from the RIAA Gestopo's manual and trying to
>>> block
>>> all things Linux because it feels its patents are being infringed.
>>>
>>> You'd better stand up for Net Neutrality while you still can - or you
>>> may be
>>> using Windows to access the net too.
>>>
>>> jim
>>
>> Yo Jim, I didn't say any of the above.
>
> I apologize - that post was to be directed at Kevpan Wackinstein - the
> poster of those comments.
>
> I blame 2 hours sleep and a working keyboard.
>
> jim

What you really meant was you were "spanking it" all night then fell asleep
for 2 hours because you just didn't have the strength to do any more!

Just FYI

>
>