House Committee Delays Hearing On Net Neutrality Due to Obstruction

FILE PHOTO – The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) logo is seen before the FCC Net Neutrality hearing in Washington February 26, 2015. (REUTERS/Yuri Gripas)

August 31, 2017
OAN Newsroom

A key House Committee delays a hearing on net neutrality after not one of the eight major tech companies showed up to testify.

GOP members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee are seeking to establish legislative net neutrality, which is currently subject to regulation by the FCC.

The FCC’s duty is to ensure internet service providers treat all internet data the same, regardless of user content, website, or platform.

Some Democrats favor the FCC’s takeover of the internet.

“We need those rules in place to put a check on this consolidation that’s happening among these big companies,” said Representative John Sarbanes. “That’s why an open internet has to be preserved by keeping these rules in place, and I don’t understand, I cannot understand why the new head of the FCC would want to get rid of that authority.”

Experts say legislative net neutrality would deprive both the FCC and major internet providers of control over the internet.

In July, House Republican leaders threatened that if internet providers kept objecting net neutrality other policies could become tougher on them.

97 Comments on "House Committee Delays Hearing On Net Neutrality Due to Obstruction"

  1. The more control the elitist try and have over the American citizens the more of us that will see what is happening. If you love freedom then you can’t love the Dems or Globalists!

  2. circlecitychaos2 | September 1, 2017 at 7:44 am |

    If you like your internet plan you can keep your internet plan.

  3. If I am sued and fail to show up, the judgement is against me. The same should hold for these idiots that are wanting to control the internet. Apparently is wasn’t important enough for them to show. So end net neutrality. It was never meant as something the govt could control. Or corporations for that matter.

  4. β€œLord, the money we do spend on Government and it’s not one bit
    better than the government we got for one-third the money twenty years

    -Will Rogers

  5. β€œA nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood
    in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.” – John F.

  6. I don’t feel too strongly one way or the other… a have a tendency toward letting the market decide how to deliver this service, but on the other hand, the administration of who qualifies for what speed and how is that throttled (i.e. technical details of routing, packets etc.) is most likely to lead to inefficiencies, which reduce performance and raise costs.

    I find it odd that the tech companies don’t even want to make an argument on their behalf here.

  7. This issue is massively frustrating. The term ‘neutrality’ is positive, but isn’t that where the internet provider can BLOCK YOUR ACCESS TO ITEMS THEY’RE OPPOSED TO SHOWING – either for money reasons or political reasons. Very Dangerous. Currently no one is controlling our access.

    • Well, not so much. Facebook, Google, and others supress content, particularly conservative items.

    • MisterSandman | September 1, 2017 at 9:39 am |

      You’ve got it backwards…without net neutrality laws, ISP’s are allowed to control your access.

  8. MisterSandman | September 1, 2017 at 6:05 am |

    Judging from a lot of the comments on here, the vast majority of you all don’t understand what the concept of net neutrality entails. It’s not about “paying for someone else’s” bandwidth or “businesses can pay for more bandwidth”, it’s about situations such as this:
    Say your internet service is through Comcast and you also subscribe to Netflix…without net neutrality laws, Comcast could legally throttle down the speed of traffic from Netflix so the service you paid for is almost unusable and you’ll be pushed toward using services Comcast offers.
    It’s not a government takeover…the internet is a public resource that was developed by a government affiliated entity ARPA, in the 1960’s.
    Get your tinfoil hats off…I’m as conservative as anyone on here, but I still recognize that private businesses can be every bit as oppressive as the government when given the opening…they’re still made up of people…and people are selfish, power hungry trash that, sometimes, need to be reigned in by the rule of law…which is government.

    • I agree with most of your views. I do not agree that government intervention is the correct answer.

      First, with or without “net neutrality” a service provider could do this and it would be something extremely difficult to detect by the average consumer.

      Second, given the scenario you laid out, those who wish to buy Comcast’s services will, those who do not will find another provider.

      Finally, I can live with your views provided we add a precept that removes the monopoly that cable companies and other ISPs may have for specific localities. I believe that good, fair competition will drive down prices and raise the level of service for the consumers!

      • MisterSandman | September 1, 2017 at 6:19 am |

        if the world existed as you laid it out, I’d agree 100%…however, it does not. A large percentage of markets here in the US have only one provider. There are several small cities here in Indiana where Comcast is it…period. The rest of the communities, unless your in a larger city, like Indy, Fort Wayne or Lafayette, only have two providers. The second provider is usually a crappy DSL service like Frontier. Like you said, the customer wouldn’t know it was happening anyway and the ISP’s certainly won’t fess up to it. Regulation is the only way to prevent it. The Founders understood that government was a necessary evil…this is one of the evils it is necessary for.

        • You seem to have no comprehension of the U.S. Constitution nor the framers of that great document. The framers wrote the U.S. Constitution specifically to LIMIT government, yet you believe it is designed to expand government.

          Cannot agree with you on this point in the least.

        • Had DSL through Verizon,.. signed up for Netflix,… when I tried to watch a movie during times of high traffic,..8-11 pm,… the movie would load,.. ten minutes of good feed,.. then buffering stops, then it would lock… had to call Verizon,.. service would resume… again and again and again,… Verizon made Netflix unusable,.. and their little feud lasted till the Govt put a stop to it. My new HotSpot service provides 250 gig and has a VOLUNTARY feature that automatically slows video down to the required data speed for a good pic which reduces data use. Common sense solutions from the private sector. Government tends to use a sledge hammer to drive a tack… and different administrations have different approaches. Progressives with their manic need for control would turn us into China overnight. Tough issue.

          • MisterSandman | September 1, 2017 at 9:36 am |

            Not every market has options…my right to not have my ISP do harm to me by devaluing a service I pay for should not be dependent on where I live. Not everything government does is bad.

          • Used to get adverts in the mail from Verizon about their wonderful FIOS system… and it was not available to me,… which caused me to leave them after being a good customer for 45 years… have been treated much better by my current provider…. It is good to have choices….

  9. The internet has become a tool for the political class. I have never seen so much political crap in my life and opinions on every angle that could possibly be created on any given issue. It is the Devils Sand Box if you ask me..It is getting to the point you don’t know truth from lies or lies from truth and that is the tipping point for the end of any civil conversation in the world…

  10. government control has not made ANYTHING better

    • THIS is a statement I can agree with fully.

    • Terri Barrow | September 1, 2017 at 6:22 am |

      LOVE this statement!

    • ” The NINE most feared words in the English language..”
      ” We’re from the Government and we’re here to help”….
      WIthout legislation the next ” OBAMA” will NAZI-FY” the FCC again.
      a LAW declaring it ioen and un regulated by the COMCAST CREW is the only way.
      Otherwise in a few years it will be ALL SOCIALISM PROPAGANDA ALL THE TIME!

    • While you are right that most of the things government involves themselves with get worse there are cases like automobile safety which have improved and saved lives due to government regulation. It is also debatable that the free market and consumer demand would have improved auto safety on it’s own given enough time, the government just expedited the time from A to B.

  11. Seems to me that if monopolies like Comcast, Verizon, etc. want no regulation that would limit their profits then as a consumer who wants choices I would want the opposite. Since when is competition bad on a level playing field? Even ultra-conservatives and progressives must agree that true net neutrality is a good policy.

    • I agree that net neutrality is a good policy, I DO NOT agree that it needs to be administered by the Government!

      • It needs to be done by an entity that will enforce the rules with teeth. Give that power to whom? It already rests with the FCC and has worked for over 20 years. Give that power to those who would profit from its abuse would be absolutely stupid.

      • Since nearly every business today seems to end up as part of a huge conglomerate behemoth, it will take a Govt agency to overcome the power wielded by the “private sector” which is busy building monopolies. Preventing Monopolies from abusing American consumers is a legit Govt function… until it is used by Govt to abuse citizens…. the whole analog to digital switch was a blatant ripoff of the Frequencies in use by Americans for decades in order to sell them to Private buyers for commercial purpose. No choice provided to consumers and no real input allowed. Massive cost to consumers to make the switch,…Govt overreach in action.

  12. ZERO government involvement is a must. There cannot be one single runner of the net.

  13. antiliberal00 | September 1, 2017 at 4:34 am |

    Anything the government touches turns to excrement. They reduce competition and increase costs. Just look at the postal service, student loans, healthcare and every other product that you use that they stuck their noses in.
    A company that pays for its infrastructure should be able to control how it recoups its costs. Yes, I think we pay far too much for internet service today, especially compared to Europe but I do believe in the free market.
    If they jack their rates up too high, someone else will come in and drive them back down. It is the way our system works.
    I don’t want the government controlling ANYTHING as they do nothing right. Everything they do is about controlling the citizens, reducing freedom and padding their pockets.
    They behave just as bad as Russia, China and NK. The only things that keep them in check is our constitution, to a small degree and the 2A to a larger degree.
    Now will someone please tell me exactly which explicit, enumerated power is the government basing its control of the internet on? There are none! It is the reason we are $20,000,000,000,000,000 in debt. It is called overstepping their authority.

  14. In a nutshell, the whole problem exist in our capitalistic society because greedy capitalist want to have a unfair, government regulated advantage over the consumer. In our capitalistic society, if you can’t “cheat” the consumer. you cannot be successful. A prime example: Have you ever gone to a fast food restaurant and received a product that even remotely looks like the item depicted in their false advertising? The Government will NEVER give the advantage to the citizens.

    • MisterSandman | September 1, 2017 at 6:12 am |

      You neither understand net neutrality or capitalism. Go peddle your socialist pablum elsewhere.

      • Yeah, my lack of understanding or embrace for capitalism is why I comfortably retired at age 35!

  15. Wasn’t it Obama that gave away our rights-of-ownership of the internet? Just wondering…I tho’t I heard that.

    • Gave away the ownership of assigning addresses to access ports to the net.
      An American organization given away to a outfit with all the morals of the UN…

  16. Jim Madison | August 31, 2017 at 9:39 pm |

    I’m still on the fence about this. While the opponents of net neutrality
    are basically giant corporate monopolies (most markets only have a
    single cable provider), neutrality is basically turning them into a
    Now look at California. Energy rates are through the roof. They’re going up while most states costs are going down. This is because after the re-regulation after the deregulation the utilities got guarantees that they wouldn’t lose money. They also happen to be building more and more facilities that are surpassing demand (and meeting that all-crucial California mandate to be 50% renewable by 2030), meaning their manufacture and operations are running losses. So we’re only using 75% capacity but our rates are skyrocketing to cover the building costs while they’re shuttering plants that are working fine This is government. This is government regulation. This is a whole sector of industry that has only to answer to an unelected board of regulators, just like the FCC.
    Maybe cable providers should be a utility, but the fact is that nobody has yet screwed anybody out of speed. It hasn’t happened to consumers and it hasn’t happened to content creators.

    • William Roosa | September 1, 2017 at 4:09 am |

      You nailed it Jim. If you need bandwidth for your lifestyle then go buy it. Don’t ask me to buy it for you. If you don’t like the price of that band width go to another IP. They will eventually get the message and the prices will stabilize along the lines of bandwidth use or they will go out of business because some other IP undercut them with lower prices.

      • Companies (like ATT) are seeing the need for more data and speed and are providing the service needed today,.. jumped from a wireless hotspot that provided 5 gig for $50 a month with charges for (constant) overages,… now provides a unit that provides 250 gig for $40 a month…. huge improvement for less money which will attract many customers,.. which is how the free market should work. Would hate to see the Govt step in and ruin that by muzzling that kind of voluntary improvement with over regulation.

      • I am seeing constant improvements in service and companies that fall behind are paying the price in loss of customers and revenue. Lots of smaller outfits snapping at the heels of the big providers. As long as that process continues, I would hate to see Govt to interfere, but with continued buyouts of competitors creating monopolies, Govt may be the only ones to prevent things like the newspaper industry, controlled by seven corporations,… all in lockstep…no more real reporting or competition…Anti Trust needs to be enforced….Again!

      • I agree. Don’t ask me to pay for your bandwidth. However, bundled packages on cable or satellite is exactly that. Which is why more and more are cutting the cable. People are sick of paying for 200 networks that they don’t watch.

      • Unfortunately, there is often only one carrier available.

  17. Michael Borton (6thstreetfishe | August 31, 2017 at 9:23 pm |

    Comcast,att and Verizon the big 3 that are fighting to have it removed,they want to stop the flow of people that are dropping traditional TV and viewing there content online hulu,Netflix’s etc they are also trying to get paid for the same traffic twice. you dont pay for x amount of data you pay for so many Megs per sec on traffic,you use it or not you pay for it .they want to charge websites to make there traffic faster than the site the doesn’t .this will stop the little guy from having there site seen. also without net neutrality if they wake up one day and dont like what oann saying they can slow the traffic to 2k and the site would be worthless. while i agree big goverment is horrible .this isnt really about bigger goverment it about saying no one not even they goverment can control the traffic.without someone like the FCC carrying a big stick to force isp to leave all traffic alone you turn over control of the internet to a few company’s and don’t fall Comcast and the rest of they wont invest in new whatever they haven’t since the mid 1980’s there using the vary same cable they laid down than only thing that has changed is the compression they use to send the data. the phone company are trying to get ahead of the new 5g standard which will be 1gig/sec + they dont want people using it for internet access when it comes out.

    • Verizon is a Fiber Optic Network. No Cable Restrictions… The Cable Industry is fighting this and so is anyone who doesn’t want Big Brother controlling everything. Must be a Democrat

      • Verizon may be a fiber optic network,… but only service high density areas,… Their fios network in my stopped about four miles from my house, and has been at a full stop for the last ten years! (I’m in a rural area) and I have no access to even a hardwired home phone because their infrastructure is so old it is no longer functional. If Verizon was my only option, I would have no access to anything but antenna based tv (three stations) or cell phone service. NO internet, no cable, no DSL,… nothing.
        Net Neutrality in the right hands means Less Corporate Control,….which is a good thing. Let the Dems get a hold of it and we are in deep kimchi……

  18. conquest915 | August 31, 2017 at 8:33 pm |

    I bet the dems do want the FCC to control the internet since it is killing the Dems LSM propaganda alphabet network monopoly. And once they get control, you can bet they will screw it up just like healthcare and it will end up costing, you know who, out the ying yang.

  19. Blacksheep The Deplorable | August 31, 2017 at 8:31 pm |

    The power that control of the Internet would give, is too much to expect it to stay neutral. It isn’t now, ISPs place limits and restrictions on content now. So do all the social media like Twitter and Facebook. So do blogs, so does OANN here. Fox News hardly even allows any comments anymore. Everyone is controlling Internet content any way they can and you can bet it’s going to keep getting worse.

  20. Government involvement equals government infringement.

    I think the First Amendment has something to say about that.

    • This part is dangerous in my opinion. If a partisan government, (which they are by nature, no matter which side you’re on), gets to control the internet, why would anyone think they wouldn’t use that control to control content as well. Would be a serious threat against the 1st amendment..

    • Sean Wallace | August 31, 2017 at 8:41 pm |

      if government doesnt get involved the providers will basically strangle people off the internet….you wont be posting on these blogs or reading news online because of the cost of the data…govt has to step in or we will fall way behind the rest of the world without freedom to share information….we already have the slowest internet of industrialized nations…why???? because internet providers dont want to update equipment…their solution is to limit americans access to the internet or make them pay through the nose.

      • You are so full of sh&shyit.

        I would explain just how diametrically you are wrong, but you’re not worth it.

        Just accept that you’re a moron.


        • William Roosa | September 1, 2017 at 3:55 am |

          Very helpful comments Jam. You don’t want to take the time to explain this very muddied by the government issue so if you are not going to help the rest of us please don’t put up road blocks when we carry your load.
          Love ya, and am praying for ya

          • I’m not trying to be helpful.

            I’m shaming that idiot for thinking we need the government intruding on every aspect of our lives.

            One, he will always think that way.

            Two, he’s only making those comments because he’s a troll and wants to be irksome.

            So if you’re not going to help the rest of us by running off these traitorous pigs, don’t put up road blocks when we carry your load.

            Hate ya, and am praying for ya . . . to go to Hell!

  21. I think maybe the fed wants its own internet.

    • They had it, that’s where the existing net came from. The Arpanet (Advanced Research Projects Agency Network) originated in the late 60’s/early 70’s and was strictly a government and research organization entity.

      • Yea Senior but that was then. I think they want a completely new internet all thier own. Control and taxed.

        • Alas, they already have that also, They have full and unfettered access to the military nets which are a lot more extensive than most realize. Also, fully encrypted, end to end. Seldom used for non-military traffic, but Congress has total access if they wish.

        • Sean Wallace | August 31, 2017 at 8:42 pm |

          internet is already taxed…read your bills

    • I think the US government and state governments should have a closed internet
      away from world access or hacking.
      The problem is how to accomplish it

      • Plus the criminal possibilities.

      • They already do, the problem is, because of convenience, they don’t use it. The state governments are a different story. They are pretty much left out in the cold.

        • and the cost of the Convenience might be catastrophic for us
          the active WW3 we are going thru atm
          is hacking of each other
          mapping of vulnerabilities
          wait til someone does something
          maybe to a nuclear plant,
          it can and probably will happen soon
          the internet makes the world empowered
          and there’s a whole world out there for crazies

          • Just to make things clear (which I haven’t), to send a message (email if you will) over a military circuit required two things. The person must have “drafting authority” (the authority to actually draft a message) and the message must be authorized by a person with ‘releasing authority” (may be the same person, not often, but can be). Records of who has what authority are kept in the “message center” and a message is thus authenticated and entered into the network. It can be a royal pain in the back side especially when the “message center” may be a couple miles away. Thus, most folks just put a server in their basement and hope for the best. Not a good idea and should be prosecuted to the max because what said isn’t the only way that only wat an event can be compromised. Even if you don’t know the content of a message, just keeping track of the quantity of traffic to, or from, a certain spot tells tales.

    • Maybe Al Gore is working on inventing another one just for them——but he does not work for cheap!!! πŸ™‚

    • Sean Wallace | August 31, 2017 at 8:49 pm |

      they have their own providers…..its about protecting consumers.

    • William Roosa | September 1, 2017 at 4:01 am |

      You think? What was your first clue? Calling it “net Neutrality” is completely misleading to start with. If a semi truck uses gas and my Honda use gas then we should have the same gas allotment each month…. that is government thinking. Can you imagine what that would do to the oil companies? They would be throwing gas in the gulf because my Honda is never going to burn all that gas they would have to produce. Can you imagine what your internet bill will be when everybody gets the same bandwidth as Hulu and the IP’s have to buy new (unused) equipment to support that because it is a law. Government control of private stuff is always a bad idea and never ends well.

      • I think the more accurate “driving” analogy would be the existence of HOV lanes and toll roads, not a gas allotment. If one pays to go on a toll road, or qualifies to use an HOV lane, they have an expectation of faster travel time due to lower traffic. Under net neutrality, there are no toll roads, no HOV lanes, and speed limit is strictly enforced. So it doesn’t matter if you have your Honda and I sprung for a Lamborghini, we both have to travel the same speed.

  22. constitutiononly | August 31, 2017 at 4:39 pm |

    If the U.S. no longer controls the internet, then why should I care?

    • The really odd thing, is that nobody really knows how many/much privately owned, and/or governmen tresources from what governments make up what parts of the “internet.” Back in the 70’s and 80’s the who was pretty limited and few, outside of government and academia, had access. Once it morphed into the internet we know today, pretty much everybody became a part of it. A pretty awesome thing in my opinion.

    • Sean Wallace | August 31, 2017 at 8:48 pm |

      Its not about government controlling internet…..its about companies picking and choosing when the consumer can access the internet…I have been severly throttled by att, and let me tell you…..their unlimited plan i could only use the internet for first five days of the month then they throttled my down to speeds 1/10 of dial up….they wanted me to go on set data plan and pay thousands a month in overages….without net neutrality…att and others can sell you plans with lets say 60gbs, after 1 gb, they can slow you down so slow that you cant use another gb, so even though you paid for 60gbs, they only allowed you to use 1gb.

      • William Roosa | September 1, 2017 at 4:13 am |

        Yea, you said that before Sean. I’m thinking that you should drop ATT since it is not “doing it” for you. See how this works, everybody gets off ATT for the same reason as you and goes somewhere else. ATT big hats scratch their heads and ask why. It’s the price and service dummy. lower your price or provide what the customer wants……..
        The alternative is for me to pay for your bandwidth….. not happening

  23. I’m not an internet expert. If anyone can give an explanation as to the pros and cons I would appreciate it. πŸ‘πŸΌ

    • The big stink isn’t about “neutrality” at all. It’s about providers throttling speed to users after using a certain amount of bandwidth. Like a cell phone company that gives you unlimited data, but once you have used X number of MegaBytes they will slow the speed of your data. The problem, as I see it, is that much of the internet belongs to private entities and travels over private channels. The pro to net neutrality is that companies can no long throttle a users speed. The con is as I stated above, much of the internet does not belong to the government. Before the Arpanet, which was strictly government and educational (research) in nature, it was pretty much government controlled. Once it morphed into the internet, nobody really knows over whose networks (servers, lines, satellite channels, etc) the data travels over. Hence the nickname, Anarchy net.

      • I appreciate your explanation. Thank you.

      • Sean Wallace | August 31, 2017 at 9:00 pm |

        I am for a free market system, and less govt, but im not for consumers being lied to and cheated….I am 100% for net neutrality.

        • William Roosa | September 1, 2017 at 3:38 am |

          So your internet prices will go up because the big 3 have to foot the bill for providing the “little guy” the same access as Hulu. The real issue here is the same old one bandwidth. It costs money to provide it and the invisible hand of Adam Smith points toward paying for what you use. Hulu uses bandwidth and I do to but mine is nowhere near theirs so I should pay less. This is how the free market works folks. net neutrality is the government stepping in and telling everybody how much bandwidth they should have. I don’t want to pay for Hulu’s bandwidth cause I don’t use Hulu.
          Net neutrality is another government tax on us.

        • Kind of like having three identical cars,.. one driven by a drunk, one by a meth head and one driven by a sober person,.. the results of Net Neutrality all depend on who is behind the wheel.

    • If any of these internet geniuses were ever to read a question on here
      this would be the question
      Can anyone give me an explanation as to the pros and cons, Truthfully and Honestly and factually?

      Since we can’t rely on the media anymore

      If there was a website that would give us Honest truthful and fact based Information
      I’d pay for access

      • Sean Wallace | August 31, 2017 at 8:53 pm |

        pros of net neutrality…..if you buy a internet plan, you keep your speed no matter how much data….con….if you buy an internet plan, the provider can cut you off whenever they feel like it even though you paid for the service….read my other posts…i explain how it goes….ive been a victim of before net neutrality.

        • MisterSandman | September 2, 2017 at 5:59 am |

          That is not what net neutrality is about. It’s about ISP’s throttling the traffic of sites that offer competing services across their network. I explained it in an earlier comment.

      • William Roosa | September 1, 2017 at 3:41 am |

        Best to go to the source and google net neutrality and read the law. My first observation is government is trying to control something here so it is going to be managed badly and probably to everybody’s disadvantage (except the politicians which will now have more control) FWIW

      • BroadbandReports(dot)com is probably your best bet for reliable info on our “cyber-world”. Many very sharp people contribute there!

    • Chris Tegge | August 31, 2017 at 6:34 pm |

      Also, If net neutrality were to be axed, then internet providers could block access to certain sites unless you pay for the “premium bundle” or some such nonsense. It would pretty much kill the internet as we know it and internet access would be treated the same as cable TV, having to pay extra for access to certain sites on the web.

      • William Roosa | September 1, 2017 at 3:48 am |

        well that sounds fair. Pay for what you use. What is the big deal with that concept. I’ll tell you what the big deal is you want me to subsidize your use of lots of bandwidth. This would not be my first choice as a light bandwidth user.

    • Do you need the same resolution on a 4.5 Iphone screen as you do an 85″ HDTV? Of course not. They throttle by application and platform. At HD bandwidth, 1 hour of Netflix would be around 4 to 5GB. With my phone plan I’d run out of bandwidth in less than 2 hours for the month. Cell companies don’t want users to have $1000 overage bills each month, which is what started this whole debate about throttling. ‘Fairness demands the same speed no matter what’ thinking.. Again, compare Iphone screen to 60+ inch HDTV, common sense explains the rest. There is more to this argument, but consider if the law is in effect, you WILL have the same resolution on your phone as you do your TV. You need very little bandwidth for email, a lot for downloading music or movies from amazon. Etc.. If maximum speed is demanded all the time, the ISP’s won’t be able to service nearly as many people.

      • Sean Wallace | August 31, 2017 at 8:35 pm |

        you are so wrong tom……that phone uses the same amount of info the tv uses..a movie streamed on tv is same information streamed on a phone….as a victim of throttling by att before the fcc stepped in i can tell you exactly how it goes…..they sell you an unlimited plan, then they decide to throttle you after so many gbs….the throttling is so bad you cant even pull up email…hence if att sells you unlimited, but throttle you at 22gbs, all you will get to use is 22gbs for the month….they slow speeds so much you cant do anything….i have experienced this…..Att solution…get rid of unlimited, buy a set plan of lets say 30gbs, then charge you up the ass for overages….they litterally told me to get rid of unlimited and get set plan and pay overage….which my overages would have been thousands a month… yes, its all about the companies trying to get you to pay thousands a month.

        • William Roosa | September 1, 2017 at 3:46 am |

          Yea, and that is why you should switch your company and let the market (lots of folks making similar decisions) determine who gets the bandwidth. Do you really want the government to determine how many GB you need each month? I don’t have a smart phone and I sure don’t want to pay for even a GB of throttled data just so I can have a cell phone. Let the market drive things not the government.

Comments are closed.