Comments on: Verizon: We don't want to play copyright cop on our network

In contrast to AT&T, company says it's not interested in installing filters on its network or inspecting packets for possible piracy, citing concerns about customer privacy.

[signal7svr]

A first for Verizon...hand off!

If AT&T is going to be responsible for "law enforcement" on their network, I think they should be held accountable for criminal activity that comes through their telephone traffic as well. They should have to shut down any nefarious phone scam operations that utlilize their networks. If they want to interfere with the network traffic, they should not be allowed to bill consumers for their services, and be forced to rely solely on revenue from the RIAA/MPAA paying the to suppress p2p traffic.

[lleather]

Verizon is listening to us packet heads

Opening up their wireless network to non proprietary phones....leaving my fios connection alone....PRICELESS!

Thanks Verizon!

[Jim Hubbard]

Why the fuss over bandwidth?

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 use P2P users).

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 3GB 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 sin't about metwork 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.

(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.)

No...instead of innovating and investing some of their ~$12 BILLION net profit in higher bandwidth technologies and networks (like the 33GB common lines in homes in Japan) AT&T wants to cut service while maintaining rates.

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

I think it is. In fact, I am going to talk to some attorneys tomorrow and see if any of them are interested in looking into a class action lawsuit to stop this crap cold.

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

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

[alegr]

Wrong numbers

It's 3 Mb link (3 Megabits/s), not 3 GB!
You can only get as much as 300 KB (300 kilobytes) per second of download speed. And upload rate is likely less that 512 kb/s, which gives you about 50 kilobytes/s. This is why it's called Asymmetric Digital Subscriber Link.

[Mergatroid Mania]

Damn Right!!

Hear hear.

It's about time someone took a stand for privacy.

How would the public feel if every letter they received by poste was read before it was delivered?
All hell would break loose, and rightly so.

[R. U. Sirius]

Totally Agree

ATT is scum, and the second Verizon has FIOS in my area, I'm switching baby.

[mikele11111]

Damn!

Now if they would just get the iPhone on their network!