AT&T's Filters, Lies & Financial Statements

[jim]

"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-police-the-Internet/2100-1034_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

 

[Kevpan Wackinstein]

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

 

[Colin Barnhorst]

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

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

 

[Moshe Goldfarb]

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

 

[Lloyd Finkerstein]

"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-police-the-Internet/2100-1034_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.

 

[jim]

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

 

[Moshe Goldfarb]

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.

 

[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

 

[Moshe Goldfarb]

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!

 

[Kevpan Wackinstein]

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

 

[RonB]

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

Your projecting again.

 

[thad05]

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?

I expect they would unleash a shitstorm of counter-lawsuits from the
EFF, FSF, OSDL, IBM, RedHat, Canonical, and on and on and on. There
are some deep pockets with a vested interest in keeping Linux
viable. Hell, *I* would start a class action lawsuit if nobody
else stepped up to the plate.

But I don't think MS is that stupid. They might try that sort of
thing through proxies like SCO and sling unfounded patent FUD around,
but I don't think they would risk the fallout of an all out IP
shooting war, not unless their backs were really against the wall.

Thad

 

[jim]

I expect they would unleash a shitstorm of counter-lawsuits from the
EFF, FSF, OSDL, IBM, RedHat, Canonical, and on and on and on. There
are some deep pockets with a vested interest in keeping Linux
viable. Hell, *I* would start a class action lawsuit if nobody
else stepped up to the plate.

But I don't think MS is that stupid. They might try that sort of
thing through proxies like SCO and sling unfounded patent FUD around,
but I don't think they would risk the fallout of an all out IP
shooting war, not unless their backs were really against the wall.

Don't kid yourself, they will go as far as they think they can. And, any
actions taken by the RIAA and the likes of ISPs like AT&T will be pointed to
as precedence when they do.

Big companies pay close attention to what each other gets away with and they
use those instances to justify their own agendas and actionsin courts of
law.

Microsoft has been caught bribing companies to create monopolies. Microsoft
has been fined for illegal activities over and over in the US and the EU.
(We should have broken it up when we had the chance in the US.)

Just what makes you think they are afraid of a little thing like a lawsuit -
once they have made their move?

They have enough money to tie up all of those little (compared to MS)
organizations you mentioned until they quit the trials due to lack of
funding to continue the fight.

Trust me when I tell you that it is easier (and less costly) to lock the
door than to remove the crimminals from the house once they have gained
entry.

jim

 

[Jim Richardson]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

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?

I expect they would unleash a shitstorm of counter-lawsuits from the
EFF, FSF, OSDL, IBM, RedHat, Canonical, and on and on and on. There
are some deep pockets with a vested interest in keeping Linux
viable. Hell, *I* would start a class action lawsuit if nobody
else stepped up to the plate.

But I don't think MS is that stupid. They might try that sort of
thing through proxies like SCO and sling unfounded patent FUD around,
but I don't think they would risk the fallout of an all out IP
shooting war, not unless their backs were really against the wall.

Thad[/QUOTE]


MS has been *very* careful to only spout FUD about patents, no legal
papers, no concrete claims of infringement. Despite repeated "show us
the infringement and we'll fix it" statements from Linus et al.

They are swinging the FUD bat as hard as they can, but it's not working,
and it's starting to really worry them.


Even SCO made no claims in court of Linux infringing IP, the SCO vs IBM
was entirely on contracts.

SCO talked big in press releases, and folks like Didio lapped it up, but
that was it.


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFHogThd90bcYOAWPYRAoiaAKDL2kssfq7tylPfXXpK1GaWaPPOUwCcDRc+
7+mZ4vHUze8TnDZ2YXfGric=
=erPz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

 

[The poster formerly known as 'The Poster Formerly]

I expect they would unleash a shitstorm of counter-lawsuits from the
EFF, FSF, OSDL, IBM, RedHat, Canonical, and on and on and on. There
are some deep pockets with a vested interest in keeping Linux
viable. Hell, *I* would start a class action lawsuit if nobody
else stepped up to the plate.

But I don't think MS is that stupid. They might try that sort of
thing through proxies like SCO and sling unfounded patent FUD around,
but I don't think they would risk the fallout of an all out IP
shooting war, not unless their backs were really against the wall.

Thad

Viva La Resistance!!

--
Priceless quotes in m.p.w.vista.general group -
Submit your nomination at the link below:
http://protectfreedom.tripod.com/kick.html

View nominations already submitted:
http://htmlgear.tripod.com/guest/control.guest?u=protectfreedom&i=1&a=view

"Fair use is not merely a nice concept--it is a federal law based on
free speech rights under the First Amendment and is a cornerstone of the
creativity and innovation that is a hallmark of this country. Consumer
rights in the digital age are not frivolous."
- Maura Corbett

 

[Linonut]

* Jim Richardson peremptorily fired off this memo:

MS has been *very* careful to only spout FUD about patents, no legal
papers, no concrete claims of infringement. Despite repeated "show us
the infringement and we'll fix it" statements from Linus et al.

They are swinging the FUD bat as hard as they can, but it's not working,
and it's starting to really worry them.

Oops. Thought you said "FUDGE bat".

Even SCO made no claims in court of Linux infringing IP, the SCO vs IBM
was entirely on contracts.

SCO talked big in press releases, and folks like Didio lapped it up, but
that was it.

Pundit: Latin for "idiot".

 

[thad05]

MS has been *very* careful to only spout FUD about patents, no legal
papers, no concrete claims of infringement. Despite repeated "show us
the infringement and we'll fix it" statements from Linus et al.

They are swinging the FUD bat as hard as they can, but it's not working,
and it's starting to really worry them.

Thats basically my point. MS has made vauge threats about patent
infringement, but have repeatedly ignored all requests to outline
any infringement in detail. If they start pushing for specific
trade restraining actions based on patent claims, they better be
prepared to pony up proof or they could lose their patents in the
ensuing counter-suit backlash, not to mention face serious
financial sanctions.

Thad

 

[Hadron]

Thats basically my point. MS has made vauge threats about patent
infringement, but have repeatedly ignored all requests to outline
any infringement in detail. If they start pushing for specific
trade restraining actions based on patent claims, they better be
prepared to pony up proof or they could lose their patents in the
ensuing counter-suit backlash, not to mention face serious
financial sanctions.

Thad

There are so many "ifs" "buts" and "coulds" in your postings when you're
doing the COLA conspiracy theory RPG that I sometimes wonder what, if
anything you post, is actually based on substantiated proof.

And there was NO linux port of that game btw....

 

[jim]

There are so many "ifs" "buts" and "coulds" in your postings when you're
doing the COLA conspiracy theory RPG that I sometimes wonder what, if
anything you post, is actually based on substantiated proof.

Speaking of substantiated proof...

It is proven that AT&T made almost $12 BILLION in NET PROFITS in 2007.

It is proven that AT&T has never considered or tested a metered bandwidth
solution (you know - like they do with their cell phone services - you pay
for what you use).

It is proven that AT&T spent 6 years and MILLIONS of dollars lobbying for a
law that would protect them from having to filter their subscribers'
internet communications for copyrighted materials - and "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-police-the-Internet/2100-1034_3-6226523.html)

It is proven that what one company gets away with will drive what other
companies attempt in the name of corporate greed - capitalism is not
(unfortunately) driven my ethical concerns but by what is technically,
legally possible in the accumulation of wealth.

It is proven that stopping an action is easier than reversing one once
started.

Let's stop bitching and stand together (JUST ONCE) on an issue that WILL
affect us all.

After we all have a free (as in rights) and unfettered internet connection
that is protected by LAW, we can attack each other 'til our little black
hearts are content.

jim

 

[thad05]

There are so many "ifs" "buts" and "coulds" in your postings when you're
doing the COLA conspiracy theory RPG that I sometimes wonder what, if
anything you post, is actually based on substantiated proof.

Eh? I was responding to a post suggesting MS might use patent
threats to restrict access to Linux information and downloads. I
take the position that they won't, because they know the potential
backlash of an all-out patent portfolio shooting war makes it too
risky. Since I was responding to a hypothetical, I can mostly
only bring hypothetical to the table. Until/unless MS actually
DOES start a patent war, we can't really know what the results
would be.

Hey, if I can't make unsubstantiated pie-in-they-sky predictions
on usenet, where can I?

And there was NO linux port of that game btw....

Neener neener, yes there was. > I am tempted to buy it just to
prove you wrong.

Later,

Thad