What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Give a Genuine Gibson Guitar for $99 (Price, Not a Typo) view!
bestbuy.com - World-class starter guitar--sweet sound, killer craftsmanship and yeah, you read that price right.
75 Comments
- bzmeteorite, on 02/26/2009, -3/+30Why am I not surprised the Supreme Court sides with Ma Bell?
- SaladCactusKing, on 02/26/2009, -3/+13Thats what happens when Bush appoints a Chief Justice.
- midhqel, on 02/26/2009, -0/+9No middleblocker, actually I should just call you a Sheeple. The problem is the government has been bought and paid for long ago. In this case AT&T sold services @ "wholesale" and then charged less for their competing services, that is price fixing and something that would have won in a court that is not paid in full.
When the Sheeple of this country actually wake up America can return to what is was supposed to be.
http://homeofthesheeple.com - lordmike, on 02/26/2009, -5/+12The right wingers here should be thrilled... after all, that's what they wanted... conservative justices that lap it up at the trough of big corporations.
- Myztry, on 02/26/2009, -0/+6Telstra did the same in Australia. They went as far as set their own retail price lower than the wholesale price for ADSL. They were convicted and heavily fined.
Obviously the laws in Australia are different. Does America have the equivalent of the ACCC?
http://www.accc.gov.au/ - Dopeness, on 02/26/2009, -4/+10***** AT&T
- Shadic, on 02/26/2009, -1/+6Accepts*
- benplaut, on 02/26/2009, -1/+6Roberts isn't the problem... it's replacing O'Connor with Alito that sent everything super-right.
- Branchex, on 02/26/2009, -2/+6"The Supreme Court reversed a decision by a U.S. appeals court in San Francisco. The ruling was the latest in a series of recent decisions by the Supreme Court that have generally made it harder to bring antitrust lawsuits, Reuters reported."
Just what the economy needs. - UtahApocalyse, on 02/26/2009, -5/+9The SC has really gone to ***** lately.
- Dumbledorito, on 02/26/2009, -0/+4I've never had a problem with T-Mobile, coverage-wise or with billing.
- Kiljoy001, on 02/26/2009, -0/+3If you've ever worked in the ISP business, you know this a common thing that all the major carriers do to squeeze out the little guys after congress forced them to play nice and share their equpment and lines. It's not about the wording the law every time but the spirit behind it. It seems to me, that the Judge didn't quite understand the issue at hand or, more likely that producing damning evidence was quite impossible to prove beyond a doubt that price fixing was occurring. Unless they had a man inside AT&T passing along information or documents that show that lowering the price for consumer services vs. resellers was done to squeeze out a market, there is no way that AT&T is going to get busted - like I said all the major players have been doing the crap for years.
While its great that DSL services on a whole are going down in price, a lot of the major players are hesitant to introduce more bandwidth in their systems as well as tacking on monitoring for P2P traffic and the like to dump the bandwidth hogs (such as myself). The broadband market is decidedly controlled exclusively by incumbent players baring an advance in some kind of new data transmission technology / media. I would love it something disruptive came along that blew out incumbents and set the stage for internet accessibility practically everywhere for little more than your electric bill per month or less. Once we have that kind ability, perhaps advances in augmented reality can take shape. - ClarkNoHeart, on 02/26/2009, -1/+4ACCEPTS
- jynweythek, on 02/26/2009, -0/+3Just to clarify, this is not a net neutrality issue. it is an antitrust issue.
- blacklilyninja, on 02/26/2009, -4/+7its amazing what money can buy you. A supreme Court only costs 3 free months of internet and a promissory note to not log any nefarious activities by said judges.
- adambadam, on 02/26/2009, -0/+3And in what other cases do you have in mind. Mind you the two big ones from today were unanimous.
- Jaydo, on 02/26/2009, -1/+4Unfortunately they know next to nothing about broadband.
which is something some kid on digg should be familiar with. - mjm65, on 02/26/2009, -0/+2I don't think At&t's broadband is as much of an issue as rates for text messaging. I would like to see a court ruling explaining how 160 characters cost 20 cents.
http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/07/01/atts-text-mes ...
The profit margins on these messages are massive because they cost AT&T almost nothing to send.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/28/business/28digi. ... - kgerm, on 02/26/2009, -0/+2ye it really sucks if you do not own the last mile...
- jiqiren, on 02/26/2009, -0/+2he is arguing we should bitch to our representatives to fix the laws and regulations that at&t is following. The SC upheld the current law - so the law needs to be changed.
Dugg. - Amshel, on 02/26/2009, -0/+2I'm really quite surprised that AT&T is playing both markets. Do they have a legal obligation to sell it to other ISPs?
Disclaimer: I'm not passing judgment either way, simply saying that they would be able to rake in much more if they supplied direct service to all of the end users who are currently with the ISPs to whom they sell. - ClarkNoHeart, on 02/26/2009, -0/+2It seems I was a minute late.
Oh well, it's such a glaring mistake that it deserves being corrected twice. - DamnMan, on 02/26/2009, -0/+2What law? The lawyers claim section 2 of the Sherman Act.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act
and http://cbdd.wsu.edu/kewlcontent/cdoutput/TR503/pag ... for an oddly familiar example on price squeezing
Price squeezing seems a pretty easy thing to quantify. If AT&T could show proof that they weren't doing so any of the lower courts would have thrown the case out. Let alone having the Supreme Court REVERSING a lower courts decision.
According to Chief Roberts AT&T could even just stop wholesale leasing to competitors outright too if it wanted. Sounds totally legit to me, god knows every mother and her dog is running copper loops to peoples houses right? You can read the ruling in the link...
http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/media_law_prof_bl ...
And to get off on a tangent. Why would it not be possible for some Jackhole on digg to be smarter than a Supreme Court Justice? The guy that finishes bottom of his class in med school is still called Doctor. Obviously the selection process of Justices has nothing to do with their scholastic achievements either. - ChiliMac, on 02/26/2009, -0/+2Yes, they are legally obligated to offer wholesale services. Sorry, I don't have any other info handy at the moment. If I get a chance to research later I'll post.
- x713, on 02/26/2009, -1/+3For one big business, the other smaller ones lost. So overall I would have to say fail.
- inactive, on 02/27/2009, -0/+2Judges are bought and paid for long before they get to the supreme court.
- FTLJohnson, on 02/26/2009, -0/+1@midhqel
LOL at a Christian calling other people sheeple. Jesus will be back to lead his flock soon right?
(Chuck Baldwin said so when he was running for President I think) BAAAAAAAAAA!!!! - inactive, on 02/26/2009, -0/+1AT&T got a phone network for free. If the government decides they have to share, then poor little unfortunate AT&T has to ***** share. If they don't like it, they can give their free phone network to someone else.
- snockhockster, on 02/26/2009, -0/+1@knowitman
Aren't you forgetting the approximately $200 billion in taxes and subsidies funded by federal, state, and local governments, at the expense of taxpayers (about $2000 per household), that was supposed to be used to rewire every state in the union with fiber?
http://digg.com/tech_news/The_$200_Billion_Broadba ...
Imagine that, they didn't pay for it back then, but apparently they now have. Revisionist history 4tw? - snockhockster, on 02/26/2009, -0/+1How many times are taxpayers going to have to pay for substandard and coercive service?
http://digg.com/tech_news/The_$200_Billion_Broadba ... - Jaydo, on 02/26/2009, -2/+3No. People complain about THIS, because ISP's in America suck DICK.
it's way more expensive here for less speeds.
That's why we complain. - snockhockster, on 02/26/2009, -0/+1Never heard of an oligopoly eh?
- Myztry, on 02/26/2009, -0/+1Oh, and the ACCC also regulates things such as unfair (disallowed) terms in consumer contracts. The list of disallow terms essentially describes a standard EULA adhesion contract.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/ ... - knowitman, on 02/26/2009, -0/+1As someone who knows an engineer for AT&T quite well, they don't get their phone network for free. Installing the equipment neccessary for providing DSL service costs millions of dollars. If someone decides to build a house 5 miles from all civilazation, AT&T is required by the government to build lines to their house.
- PhantomRogue, on 02/27/2009, -0/+1Which is why Supreme Court Justices should have a Term limit of 12 years. This lifetime ***** is ridiculous.
The Justices are so out of touch with Reality its not even funny. Bunch of old White Men... and a Black guy... and a woman who resembles my grandmother... Yeah, THEY know whats going on... - bzmeteorite, on 02/26/2009, -1/+2Because they charge resellers much more than their own rates (in the case of unbundled loops for reseller-based CLECs). Broadband already has low margins for small providers, but in many cases, AT&T charges them more than their own rates – that's not even including the CLEC's employees, support, etc. It's extremely hard to compete by being a CLEC unless you set yourself apart in customer service and support.
Also, as to your point about no bandwidth limits, AT&T is indeed already implementing caps ( http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/ATT-Starts-Mete ... ).
I only have AT&T because Charter is much worse and I'm a cheap ass (can I blame the economy?) to use a CLEC. - chaos36, on 02/26/2009, -0/+1You've never been with Verizon I take it.
- bzmeteorite, on 02/26/2009, -0/+1I believe the FTC would be the closest thing to the ACCC, at least from a quick glance.
Though, I have to say, as much as I hate AT&T, I prefer my unfiltered tubes (though warrantless wiretaps gripe my ass). Also, your bandwidth caps are much lower, except for a few of our providers (TWC comes to mind). - bzmeteorite, on 02/26/2009, -1/+2AT&T makes more money off selling an unbundled loop to a CLEC than they do selling it to a customer. Precisely because they charge reseller-based CLECs more than their own customers. This doesn't include the CLEC's other costs of employees, support, etc. which means that they have to charge more and set themselves apart in some other way (usually quality support).
Also, your analogy isn't a very good one. The CLEC isn't able to undercut AT&T; as for profiting on someone else's labor... well, the copper plant was funded by taxpayer money and given to AT&T. All they have to do is maintain it, stop in CO's every once in a while, and answer phones. Very little plant was actually invested by their own accord and the taxpayer is getting screwed over it. - tnoy, on 02/26/2009, -0/+1Installing and maintaining the towers is not free.
- renemartini, on 02/26/2009, -2/+3Wow! A truly articulated point in Digg.
- Myztry, on 02/26/2009, -0/+1My tubes are unclogged. Political dribble often comes to naught here.
I'm paying (actually work is paying) AU$70 per month for ADSL2 (@8000/550ish yield) in a rural city (~100k population) with 96Gig quota (on/off peak split). I use a fraction of it, and if it cost ME, I'd probably go cheaper. - Myztry, on 02/26/2009, -0/+1"Installing and maintaining the towers is not free."
The towers exist to get people onto voice services, so the installation and maintenance costs are pre-existing adding no cost for SMS. More to the point, the SMS allows people to save themselves from placing calls. While this is not a cost as such either, it causes a revenue reduction. - bury, on 02/26/2009, -0/+1How would you feel if your tax dollars subsidized a farm on public property and one company was charging a markup to other farmers to use said coop? It's a bad analogy, btw.
- bury, on 02/26/2009, -0/+1Maybe you would prefer a reseller with actual customer service. Or maybe even faster than 1-1.5 Mbps for $20.
- herojon, on 02/26/2009, -1/+2So you all are mad that AT&T is charging less to consumers and wanting to boycott them? Strange, the logical thing to do would be to switch to the company that is charging us less.
- Axtell2k5, on 02/26/2009, -1/+1How much less than $20 a month do you tools really need? If you can't afford $20 a month for DSL, then you probably don't need it in the first place!
- LilRabbitFooFoo, on 02/26/2009, -1/+1Actually they do indeed cost PRECISELY nothing to send.
SMS messages are piggybacked on the free message link between the phone and the cell tower...which is entirely, completely, and precisely free. - inactive, on 02/26/2009, -1/+1It isn't that they're charging customers too much. I used to work for a DSL ISP, and the problem is that AT&T charges those companies more to resell a circuit than they do for a retail customer to buy direct from them.
The big telephone companies are ***** enough with the limited competition that these providers give them. Wiping them out, which is precisely what this ruling will do, will only make things worse. -
Show 51 - 78 of 78 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is