>'"John Donovan, head of AT&T’s satellite, phone and internet operations, said "unequivocally we are not selectively throttling by what property it is. We don’t look at any traffic differently than any other traffic."
He compared AT&T throttling to an electricity grid where some customers sign up for rolling blackouts in return for cheaper service. That’s what Choffnes’s research is detecting, the AT&T executive said."'
Except that nobody would ever sign up for a cheaper electrical service in exchange for rolling blackouts.
It's also an interesting choice for a metaphor given that power companies are regulated utilities that would never be allowed to offer this as a result of that regulation. Lastly AT&T service is not cheap to to begin with.
I think this statement really crystalizes the absurdity of these carriers and the buffoons running them.
Remember the FCC's reasoning for rolling back Net Neutrality were "paving the way for better, faster and cheaper Internet access for consumers."[1]
Exactly zero of those objectives are being achieved by throttling consumer's bandwidth.
Yes, the idea of ceding to the power company (in exchange for a credit / rate reduction) the ability to turn off your power in whole or part is well known and is called "Demand Response"
> would never be allowed to offer this as a result of that regulation
Sure they would, I can sign up to stick a device between my wall and my major appliances where the power company will shut me off during peak hours in exchange for a cheaper bill. Why wouldn't this be allowed? It's hard to argue that such a system is anything but beneficial to everyone involved.
> Lastly AT&T service is not cheap to to begin with.
ISPs, along with a lot of businesses really, don't really compete on price. The industry has long since figured out how much value customers get from their service and wouldn't dare undercut or risk accidentally killing the cash cow.
He compared AT&T throttling to an electricity grid where some customers sign up for rolling blackouts in return for cheaper service. That’s what Choffnes’s research is detecting, the AT&T executive said."'
Except that nobody would ever sign up for a cheaper electrical service in exchange for rolling blackouts.
It's also an interesting choice for a metaphor given that power companies are regulated utilities that would never be allowed to offer this as a result of that regulation. Lastly AT&T service is not cheap to to begin with.
I think this statement really crystalizes the absurdity of these carriers and the buffoons running them.
Remember the FCC's reasoning for rolling back Net Neutrality were "paving the way for better, faster and cheaper Internet access for consumers."[1]
Exactly zero of those objectives are being achieved by throttling consumer's bandwidth.
[1] https://www.fcc.gov/restoring-internet-freedom