13 ms·
AT&T Successfully Derails California's Tough New Net Neutrality Law
- Retric 8y agoSo, I was thinking of canceling all AT&T services over this. Does anyone know of good alternatives for cellular service that don't do the same crap? #BoycottATT
- Rjevski 8y agoif you're in the US, give https://www.twilio.com/wireless https://www.twilio.com/wireless a try. You're still using the same carriers under the hood but at the very least you're giving money to their business/enterprise side instead of the shitty customer side.
- laken 8y agoI tried using Twilio Wireless, but note it is NOT a good replacement for cellular service. You can't receive texts from other Twilio numbers, which doesn't sound that bad, until you realize that virtually every verification SMS from most services also use Twilio. I wouldn't get 90% of my 2FA SMS codes anymore after trying to use it. Also, data is super expensive on Twilio Wireless. After one day of just background data (no browsing or streaming) I was charged ~$15 (for the 100MBish of data I used off of Wi-Fi). There are all kinds of other problems with it too as a cell service. There are some really good reasons to use Twilio Wireless though, but not for mobile phone service. It's great for IoT hobby projects.
- foodstances 8y agoYou can't receive texts from other Twilio numbers That seems like it would be the easiest thing for them to get working out of all the wireless stuff, did you report that issue to them?
- laken 8y agoBeen a bit since I last looked into the problem, but I was mistaken. You can't receive texts from shortcode numbers (though the majority of those use twilio), but that has the same effect - no 2FA codes many places.
- jrockway 8y agoI think it's intentional. I use Google Voice as my primary phone number, and there are various services that won't let me use it for 2FA, etc. I opened a support ticket with Discord to ask why, and after many emails back in forth they told me they have a database of what type of phone number every phone number is, and mine is "VoIP" which they claim cannot receive SMSes. (Everyone else, including my bank, has no trouble, of course... because they check by sending the SMS, not asking some outdated database if it's possible to send the SMS.) What they didn't tell me, but I assume, is that some popular discord servers require phone verification to limit spam... and if anyone could just use a VoIP number as that phone verification, then that wouldn't work. (It still doesn't work, of course, but they think it does.) I, of course, just want to have an account recovery phone number, but they conflate the two uses of the phone number (person identifier, versus arbitrary second factor). TL;DR, a lot of places are dumb and intentionally prevent you from using any sort of "recyclable" phone number. It helps them keep up the illusion that a phone number uniquely identifies exactly one person. Maybe that's true in South Korea, but it isn't here. So it just screws legitimate users for no reason.
- kelnos 8y agoTwo things: You absolutely can receive texts from other Twilio numbers. It's shortcodes you can't receive from (which is definitely a problem). Your data would be cheaper if you set the billing mode to "individual" (and not "pooled"), which will charge you for blocks of 1GB at a time. Having said that, data will still probably not be cheaper than a normal retail cell plan. Aside from that, another issue is lack of MMS support. Twilio Wireless is designed for IoT use cases, so general cell phone use isn't something it's optimized for. (Source/Disclosure: I'm the engineer who built the first version of Twilio Wireless.)
- Rjevski 8y agoMMS is useless anyway so I see that as a non-issue, if anything it removes useless complexity. Social networks, email and WhatsApp/Telegram replaced MMS long ago, and as a bonus they don’t re-compress your images to make them look even more awful.
- foota 8y agoI'm on fi and I like it.
- pavel_lishin 8y agoFi is largely predicated on saving you money as long as you're near accessible wifi, right? I have concerns about switching it and using it when I'm away from a connection.
- billhathaway 8y agoThe data fee is all pay-per use, It is $10/gig and max data fee is $60/month.
- pavel_lishin 8y agoBy max, you mean that once I burn through six gigs, the remainder is free? Or that after six gigs, I'm out of data for the month?
- Androider 8y agoAfter six gigs it's free. It's great, my average bill is $30 because I'm on WiFi at both work and home.
- washadjeffmad 8y agoSame, and even when I travel without wifi the data expenses are pretty marginal. If you download your podcasts, maps, and translation dictionaries before you leave, and you don't have to have youtube or netflix constantly playing when not around wifi, it's pretty ideal.
- jtokoph 8y agoAs the sibling comment from androider says, after 6gigs is free, but after 15gigs you operate at reduced speeds. Edit: here are the details: https://fi.google.com/about/faq/#plan-and-pricing-extra-high-speed https://fi.google.com/about/faq/#plan-and-pricing-extra-high...
- jesse_m 8y agoI'm on Ting I think the GSM they resell is T-Mobile but I think it's nice to have that abstraction because I would imagine if T-Mobile suddenly tanked or something they would figure out something else on the backend
- thebosz 8y agoAll of the major Cell providers in the US (Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile and Sprint) do this sort of crap to different degrees. AT&T and Verizon have the most money so they do it the most. If you want to use something a little less ... tainted, you can look into MVNOs. They buy bulk service from the major carriers and sell it to you at a reduced cost (with usually fewer "benefits"). Be sure to look to who actually owns the MVNO though. I know, for example, that AT&T owns Cricket and T-Mobile owns MetroPCS.
- hedora 8y agoI recommend tracfone. They are Mexican, so the corruption gets exported. Also, as light users, the bill went from $40/month/phone to $10/month/phone; starve the beast and whatnot. As a bonus, they are a big enough evil monopoly to shove the lowly US telcos around, so you can choose between the Verizon, AT&T or T-Mobile network.
- srmatto 8y agoRelevant link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_mobile_virtual_network_operators https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_mobile_v...
- wtracy 8y agoCredo Mobile is a MVNO that has made pro-net neutrality statements in the past: http://www.credomobile.com http://www.credomobile.com I've never done business with them, so I can't say anything else about them. Another option might be Google Fi. https://fi.google.com/about/ https://fi.google.com/about/ I've heard good things, but be aware that they charge by the gigabyte for data. Also, the list of compatible phones is pretty short.
- craftyguy 8y agoI really wanted to give Credo a try, but: > Fight Trump and get unlimited data on the nation’s largest and most dependable 4G LTE network[0] I hate donald and everything he 'stands' for, but don't lower yourself to his level just to sell your service. One other bit, it's really not clear anywhere on their site if you can bring your own device to use with their service... They really want you to buy one of their devices. That's too bad. 0. http://www.credomobile.com/Plans/Info http://www.credomobile.com/Plans/Info
- urda 8y agoYou're trading one telecom for another, all of which will be doing this. In the end you'll be wasting your time moving from one carrier to the next, while they sleep just fine at night.
- abawany 8y agoI use Teltik, which resells T-Mobile Business services starting with plans at $20/mo. It has been an amazing experience so far. I used to be on AT&T MVNOs previously (Red Pocket) and while those are fine, the Teltik experience is way better for a very important reason: T-Mobile lets you use your data and voice plan in Canada and Mexico for no extra charge. Customer service has been superb as well.
- Animats 8y agoI canceled all AT&T services last year. Internet comes in via Sonic (which is pro net neutrality), voice is VoIP, and cellular is from T-Mobile.
- natch 8y agoIn my area Sonic uses AT&T pipes and accepts an AT&T requirement that they charge the customer a high monthly fee for the rental of a modem, imposed as a policy even if the customer owns and uses their own modem. Not to mention that they bundle service with extra charges for an unwanted land line. So Sonic isn’t looking so great from here. Were they bought up by someone?
- rhizome 8y agoWere they bought up by someone? No, and the AT&T thing is just for copper.
- SaltyBackendGuy 8y agoI did the same thing this week actually. I called because I stopped getting cell service at my house. Then they told me I couldn't connect to WIFI calling because I have a Pixel. Then tried to sell me DirectTV while not resolving my cell service issue. I switched to ProjectFI. Works great so far because I am basically always on WIFI, I realize this solution wont work for everyone.
- hansthehorse 8y agoWife is on ProjectFI and I'm on Ting. I may switch over to FI when the Pixel 3 is launched but I'll miss Ting. Ting could teach customer service, it is a pleasure to call them, plus they play the theme to Buckaroo Banzai if there is a queue.
- dragonwriter 8y ago> So, I was thinking of canceling all AT&T services over this. Does anyone know of good alternatives for cellular service that don't do the same crap? Well, at least for not doing it in the same political direction as AT&T, et al., CREDO mobile might be an option.
- morganvachon 8y agoTing is very pro Net Neutrality[1]. They are a MVNO riding on the Sprint and T-Mobile networks. [1] https://ting.com/blog/net-neutrality-repeal-statement/ https://ting.com/blog/net-neutrality-repeal-statement/
- justinpombrio 8y agoTing also has fantastic plans: you pay for what you use; if you use more you pay less per unit; all prices are clearly listed on their website; roaming charges are reasonable; there are no surprises.
- madhadron 8y agoTing also happens to have some of the best customer service of any consumer facing company today. When you call them, you immediately get a human being that is intelligent and (every time I have dealt with them) able to solve your problem.
- morganvachon 8y agoYep I usually mention that as well as justinpombrio's comment, I just hate sounding like a shill. I'm simply an extremely satisfied customer from way back at launch. One more thing: They are very friendly towards oddball devices. I had a Nokia 900 that they happily sent me a SIM card to fit, and helped me with APN settings (the defaults almost worked but needed to be tweaked a bit). They also more recently helped me get an iPad mini set up on the Sprint side. It took some finagling by the support person since they don't officially support that device, but they got me up and going. Their support staff is alway super friendly, I've never met a grumpy one even back when I was beta testing GSM on Windows Phone devices for them and had to call in several times a week.
- lisper 8y agoI recently signed up with Consumer Cellular after being with AT&T for many, many years. So far I'm very happy with them.
- JustSomeNobody 8y ago> The company managed to convince California Assemblyman Miguel Santiago to introduce a series of last-minute secretive Tuesday night amendments that were then voted on without debate during a Wednesday morning hearing... How is this legal? Why is this legal?
- trhway 8y agoManaged to convince. Would be interesting to learn how one does it.
- pessimizer 8y agoUnanimity is a shield. They can all mutually defer their reasoning for supporting the bill to everyone else who voted, and say that their vote against wouldn't have made a difference. Any vote against would have put pressure on all of the others. AT&T came up with a deal that pleased everyone, and therefore immunized everyone. There were only eight; it's not hard, and politicians are notoriously cheap.
- shmerl 8y agoIsn't such deal called a bribe in normal countries?
- DannyBee 8y agoWhich part? Remember that all of these articles have spin. The spin so far i've seen on this is pretty stupid[1]. One thing it doesn't note: The amendments were approved 8-0, so all the republicans and democrats on the committee were in favor. But of course, that gets spun as massive conspiratorial collusion by the folks who think it was wrong, and bipartisan cooperation by those who think it was right. edit: It turns out they were not approved 8-0, despite a number of news stories claiming otherwise. They were approved 8-2[2] [1] Someone tried to paint the picture that AT&T was a major campaign contributor to him, but they really aren't: https://www.followthemoney.org/entity-details?eid=23421278 https://www.followthemoney.org/entity-details?eid=23421278 [2] https://medium.com/@fightfortheftr/at-t-funded-democrats-in-california-just-eviscerated-the-best-net-neutrality-bill-in-the-country-1e90defb5086 https://medium.com/@fightfortheftr/at-t-funded-democrats-in-... et al vs https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billPdf.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB822&version=20170SB82295AMD https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billPdf.xhtml?bill_...
- MindTooth 8y agoTo me it seems that the people in power; either likes to have it in the ass, or are just pure evil/ignorant. There is nothing on this earth that justifies the way that big IPS/telco operates when it comes to stuff like this. Not in a million year can you convince me that companies like AT&T, BT, Comcast do this as benevolence of hearth.
- shams93 8y agoCalifornia may lose the whole clout of its tech economy if people have to bail to localities with municipal internet service just to be able to do business. Ultimately that would leave ATT with far fewer customers in California as you have a tiny pool of wealthy and a massive pool of homeless who are completely off the grid who have no ATT service whatsoever. They don't see the connection between a healthy middle class, the need for solid web for business and their own business health as being a part of an interlocking ecosystem.
- exhilaration 8y agoIf that really becomes an issue, the telcos and cablecos have extensive experience with getting municipal internet outlawed: https://www.publicintegrity.org/2014/08/28/15404/how-big-telecom-smothers-city-run-broadband https://www.publicintegrity.org/2014/08/28/15404/how-big-tel... See previous HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15655548 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15655548
- bgentry 8y ago> To me it seems that the people in power; either likes to have it in the ass I'm having trouble understanding how this comment is anything other than homophobic.
- pnut 8y agoTo the contrary, every human, regardless of gender or creed, has an ass. It is the one universal way that we all can be violated against our will. And anyway, Anal play is not restricted to homosexuals.
- throwawaymanbot 8y agoSince AT&T gutted this, and in such a fashion, its even clearer that they should NEVER have been allowed to merge.
- rndmize 8y agoDisappointing but unsurprising. There's little to be done at the moment aside from contacting your assemblyman/state senator and making yourself heard. I would expect, generally, that if a company is going to spend tens of billions on an acquisition, a few tens of millions on marketing material, "citizen groups", "studies", third-party editorials, etc. would be par for the course; it's pure bad business to do otherwise. But it's possible that with enough actual calls/contacts from constituents that some progress gets made and reps can be pointed in the right direction. Hell, this being California, perhaps something similar will make it onto the state ballot at some point.
- onetimemanytime 8y ago>>I would expect, generally, that if a company is going to spend tens of billions on an acquisition, a few tens of millions on marketing material, "citizen groups", "studies", third-party editorials, etc. would be par for the course; it's pure bad business to do otherwise. OK, but Google, AMZN, APPL and MSFT (the other side of the equation) can buy AT&T with their pocket change. Obviously outspend them by a huge margin in any campaign. So either AT&T is wayyyy more motivated or they have an edge in this debate. Investments in x area? Jobs?
- erichurkman 8y agoGoogle and Apple can afford to pay the costs of a non-neutral web. A non-neutral web closes the market to competitors.
- vatueil 8y agoLobbying power isn't just a factor of market cap. For example, consider how media groups such as the RIAA and MPAA have pushed for ever more intellectual property laws despite being smaller than the groups that would benefit from copyright reform. Similarly with Article 11 and 13 of the proposed EU digital copyright directive. There's only so much money you can throw at lobbying: beyond a certain point there's diminishing returns, not to mention the criticism (warranted or not) that lobbying tends to atttract. Industries that employ more people or have a strong local presence can also punch above their weight. And of course, much as we might pretend otherwise politicians are capable of holding their own opinions, too. It's not just AT&T that's opposed to this bill, either. A wide range of cable companies and ISPs are lobbying against it: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/04/att-and-cable-lobby-are-terrified-of-a-california-net-neutrality-bill/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/04/att-and-cable-lo... > AT&T and the lobby group that represents Comcast, Charter, Cox, and other cable companies have been making their displeasure known to lawmakers in advance of hearings on a bill that could impose the toughest net neutrality law in the nation. The California bill implements the FCC's basic net neutrality rules from 2015, but it also bans paid zero-rating arrangements in which home or mobile Internet providers charge online services for data cap exemptions.
- jon_richards 8y agoWould it be possible to get the original text of the bill and introduce it as a prop?
- dragonwriter 8y agoYes. Text as introduced is here: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB822 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm... All the intermediate versions are there, too, you might actually want to start with the most recent version prior to the hostile amendments rather than the original text.
- pteredactyl 8y agoThank you. To me this is what really matters. Anyone can slap the title 'net neutrality' on anything. People see 'net neutrality' and get up about it without knowing what's being decided upon. I read it a little bit and it's saying the State ( of California ) should have the authority to police the internet of that which it deems necessary: > SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares all of the following: (a) This bill is adopted pursuant to the police power inherent in the State of California to protect and promote the safety, life, public health, public convenience, general prosperity, and well-being of society, and the welfare of the state’s population and economy, that are increasingly dependent on an open and neutral Internet. (b) Almost every sector of California’s economy, democracy, and society is dependent on the open and neutral Internet that supports vital functions regulated under the police power of the state, including, but not limited to, each of the following: (1) Police and emergency services. (2) Health and safety services and infrastructure. (3) Utility services and infrastructure. (4) Transportation infrastructure and services, and the expansion of zero- and low-emission transportation options. (5) Government services, voting, and democratic decisionmaking processes. (6) Education. (7) Business and economic activity. (8) Environmental monitoring and protection, and achievement of state environmental goals. (9) Land use regulation. I read that and question... hmmm... I wonder what the State ( of California's ) definition on all those items are....
- CodeWriter23 8y ago
- shmerl 8y agoThis is really corrupt, simply disgusting.
- bogomipz 8y agoI am wondering if "citizens broadband" and 5G might finally offer a viable alternative that will relegate these cancerous companies like AT&T to the trash heap. For those who aren't familiar with this spectrum and it's opportunities. See: https://www.mouser.com/applications/cbrs_is_the_next_big_thing_in_wireless/ https://www.mouser.com/applications/cbrs_is_the_next_big_thi... and https://www.qualcomm.com/news/onq/2016/08/29/new-kind-spectrum-new-opportunities https://www.qualcomm.com/news/onq/2016/08/29/new-kind-spectr...
- ac29 8y agoCBRS is interesting, but there isnt a ton of spectrum available (80-150Mhz, depending on how you count it). Its also of sufficiently high frequency (3.55-3.70 GHz), that building penetration should be close to zero. Some interesting applications might come from it, but it shouldn't vastly change the game compared to what can be done with 2.4 & 5GHz unlicensed frequencies now.
- bogomipz 8y agoCBRS wouldn't be the entire solution. You would use CBRS as the backhaul between WIFI and Fiber: internet <-> fiber <-> CBRS <-> WIFI <-> home
- protomyth 8y agoThe company managed to convince California Assemblyman Miguel Santiago to introduce a series of last-minute secretive Tuesday night amendments that were then voted on without debate during a Wednesday morning hearing: So, find out all those who voted yes on those amendments and picket their offices after inviting the press then primary them out of office. Rinse and repeat until they don't have someone who will introduce legislation for them. Don't succumb to thoughts of "well, they're good on other stuff" because then you really won't be effective. Don't try to educate them, just discard them and make sure the next politician understands what is not allowed. Focusing on AT&T is a waste of effort because next time it will be Verizon or someone else.
- tzs 8y agoBased on the Ars story and others, it sounds like the net effect (no pun intended) of the amendments is to make the bill pretty much equivalent to the Open Internet Order of 2015. No blocking, no throttling, no paid prioritization.
- rsingel 8y agoThat's incorrect. The amendments strip out other protections from the 2015 Open Internet Order. 1) A ban on circumventing net neutrality at the point of interconnection. The FCC order said it would do this using Secs 201 and 202 (Title II) of the Telecommunications Act. This stopped the Comcast/Verizon throttling and shakedown of Netflix and Cogent. 2) The amendments stripped out the ban on access fees, the practice of charging websites simply so that they load for users. This was banned in 2010 and 2015 as special kind of blocking. Verizon sued over this in 2012. 3) The amendments pull out any oversight of zero-rating, where the 2015 rule allowed the FCC to use the general conduct standard to review ALL zero-rating programs. In 2017, an FCC report said that AT&T and Verizon's self-dealing zero-rating programs violated net neutrality. That's what SB 822 did before the amendments. That's only the big ones. SB 822 is now far weaker than the 2015 order thanks to Santiago.
- hlieberman 8y agoShameful.
- drawkbox 8y agoWhen companies like AT&T are big enough to override very publicly supported law, we need to get back to breaking them up. 83% support equal access to content with net neutrality. [1] AT&T == Anti-trust time. [1] http://www.publicconsultation.org/united-states/overwhelming-bipartisan-majority-opposes-repealing-net-neutrality/ http://www.publicconsultation.org/united-states/overwhelming...
- craftyguy 8y agoYea, except it's not a permanent solution to the problem. Ma Bell was shattered into pieces, but those pieces have reformed and are, arguably, more powerful now due to bonehead SCOTUS rulings like Citizens United.
- DmenshunlAnlsis 8y agoSolutions don’t need to be permanent if they can be repeated. A truly permanent solution would be to add them to the proverbial list of “they’ll be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes,” but I’d rather see less permanent, less drastic solutions that still yield the desired results.
- craftyguy 8y agoThey can only be repeated with a competent DOJ/administration. Else, they will be able to stick around much longer and dig in deeper. And if the system allows them to influence the administration, then the solution (or option) is permanently destroyed.
- DmenshunlAnlsis 8y agoIn the absence of a competent system there is no solution, permanent or otherwise. It’s like trying to secure your laptop against someone who has physical possession of it; you can’t, they own it now.
- wavefunction 8y ago
- herf 8y agoAmazing that Net Neutrality can be bought for only $60,000. Wikipedia says: "State Assemblyman Miguel Santiago received over $60,000 from telecom lobbyists, with AT&T being the top telecom contributor, over the course of his assembly career."
- madhadron 8y agoAmazon bought a multimillion dollar tax reduction from the city of Seattle for $25k of propaganda. The market for influence is very inefficient.
- doggydogs94 8y agoBlame AT&T all you want, but the CA assembly passed the law with AT&T’s goodies included. The obvious fix is at the ballot box.