AT&T Yields to Neutrality, Paves Path to Congress
December 29th, 2006 by tkarrIn a striking victory for Internet freedom advocates, AT&T officials agreed on Thursday night to adhere to strict Network Neutrality conditions if allowed to complete their $85 billion merger with BellSouth which was approved on Friday.
 Neutralized for now: |
The phone company filed a “letter of commitment” with the Federal Communications Commission in which it promises to observe Net Neutrality principles for at least 24 months. Now it’s left to Congress to follow the FCC’s lead and make Net Neutrality permanent under the law.
According to AT&T’s letter, the merged company:
“… commits that it will maintain a neutral network and neutral routing in its wireline broadband Internet access service. This commitment shall be satisfied by AT&T/BellSouth’s agreement not to provide or to sell to Internet content, application, or service providers, including those affiliated with AT&T/BellSouth, any service that privileges, degrades or prioritizes any packet transmitted over AT&T/BellSouth’s wireline broadband Internet access service based on its source, ownership or destination.”
AT&T’s concession followed more than a week of often pointed negotiations with the two Democrats on the commission, Michael Copps and Jonathan Adelstein. This was compounded by tens of thousands of letters from SavetheInternet.com and Free Press activists who demanded that the FCC allow no merger without Net Neutrality.
Approval of the merger by the full commission came late Friday.
Commentary on the Merger: |
AT&T’s agreement puts to rest their own executives’ argument that Net Neutrality doesn’t really exist. (Watch AT&T chief Ed Whitacre in action) The phone giant just committed to observing Net Neutrality and defined it in the text of its letter.
It also puts to rest the bogus argument that Net Neutrality will cripple the largest phone companies’ plans to build out broadband services. AT&T agreed to this condition — and also to offer cheaper broadband services – and yet they continue to expand their networks and offer services to the tune of $24.5 billion in gross profits in 2006.
AT&T’s agreement to these merger terms reduces to industry spin their argument that Net Neutrality and profit are mutually exclusive.
Now It’s Up To Congress
Now that the FCC and AT&T have agreed that Net Neutrality is right for the future of the Internet, it’s time for Congress to forge legislation that instills this guiding principle into law.
As Free Press Policy Director Ben Scott recently said, “We are no longer having a debate about whether Net Neutrality should be the law of the land; we are having a debate about how and when.”
With the help of FCC Commissioners Adelstein and Copps — who held out for Net Neutrality against intense pressure from Chairman Kevin Martin and AT&T lobbyists — we have won more than a temporary condition on a mega-merger. They have set the bar for the future of the Internet, and paved our path to success on Capitol Hill.
“Making Net Neutrality a condition of the largest merger in telecommunications history sets an important precedent,” Scott said on Thursday. “It’s now up to the new Congress to craft a forward-looking broadband policy that will bring the benefits of the Internet to all Americans. For free speech, democratic participation and economic innovation to thrive online, Net Neutrality must be the law.”
December 29th, 2006 at 2:27 am
[…] STI’s grassroots efforts to voice opposition to Congressional gutting of Net Neurality has led to some progress, and has started to turn the question from ‘pro vs. con’ into mainly an implementation issue. AT&T has even agreed to fully comply with Net Neutrality conditions if and when its BellSouth merger completes. For STI and Net Neutrality supporters everywhere, this is a significant milestone. The issue will remain in the public spotlight (hopefully) in the coming years, as more legislation will be introduced in ‘07 as Congress continues to get a handle on Net Neutrality. […]
December 29th, 2006 at 11:30 am
Tim, that’s awesome news! Congratulations to you and everyone who participated in this victory for American businesses and consumers.
The question I have relates to the 24 month “limit” on abiding by net neutrality. Can this be negotiated further out? What’s the strategy on dealing with that — and what happens if legislation gets filibustered in the Senate and that time-limit expires?
December 29th, 2006 at 11:50 am
Thanks. The strategy is to go to Congress and make Net Neutrality a law before the 24 months expire
December 29th, 2006 at 3:11 pm
Whether it’s 1 month, 24 months, or as another report stated, 30 months.
There must be NO LIMIT on net neutrality, ever, and FOREVER!!
Everyone got upset when Microsoft acceded to China’s demand to be able to censor internet content. Yet, China has a point! They are trying to feed and keep happy the largest population in the world. A “peoples” revolt there would have a devastating effect world-wide. Thus; I can understand why China still needs time for it’s people to get the “GREED” ism the rest of the world has.
Unfortunately, and to this country’s moral decreptitude, our reason for doing the same thing as China is nothing more than corporate greed.
Maybe if the corporations paid their pensions up so people who have built the company can have a life after retirement, instead of giving the CEO 100’s of millions, they might have the right to make a buck or two more.
Someone in the business world, some 10 years ago or so said, “Greed is good”. He’s a total ass. Greed is NOT GOOD. Getting a fair price for a GOOD product in a FAIR manner is good. Screwing over everyone because you can is PURE EVIL!
Our Government cares nothing about us, only the $$ they can stick in their pockets.
If I sound bitter—Well– I damn well am !!
Thanks for reading my ranting.
Now everyone write Congressman John D. Dingell, Michigan. The new chair of the committee over-seeing the FCC, and all Telecommunications, and get this net neutrality passed as a permanent law.
If you have ATT&T or Bell South, drop them if you can, as fast as you can, IF you can. They are not OUR friends.
Scotty
December 29th, 2006 at 3:50 pm
Excellent news, just excellent. Keep it up guys, even in small moments of victory like this one we must never let up until victory is ours and net neutrality is the law of the land.
December 29th, 2006 at 6:44 pm
Why are people celebrating this???
AT&T was willing to concede to net neutrality for 30 months *BEFORE* this so called “settlement,” and *BEFORE* McDowell finally recused himself for good. The Dem FCC commissioners were holding out for a 48 month guarantee on net neutrality before they would sign of on the merger. From Forbes, Dec 9th:
“To get the merger approved, AT&T (nyse: T - news - people ) has pledged that for 2 1/2 years it won’t provide Web sites that agree to pay a premium either faster or more reliable service over its Internet backbone. That is good enough for two Republican commissioners, one of them being Chairman Kevin Martin. But the two Democratic commissioners, Michael Copps and Jonathan Adelstein, want a four-year guarantee.”
http://tinyurl.com/yzbbl6
The only thing that’s changed is AT&T making a big deal about the same ‘concession’ they made one month ago.
How gullible are we here?
If this is accepted, then ‘our’ commissioners accomplished nothing but some grandstanding and face saving, at our expense. How does it feel to be a whore, cause we just got pimped.
December 29th, 2006 at 7:17 pm
Well, its too late, the FCC just approved the deal. We’ve just been had.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aV4SfzOi93HE&refer=home
Oh, and don’t worry, it gets worse.
December 29th, 2006 at 7:23 pm
Tiered internet, here we come!
“Dave Burstein, who knows more about DSL than probably just about anyone, lets us know that the fine print in the deal actually may negate the network neutrality premise. The wording is a little tricky, but while they agree not to remove network neutrality from their standard network, hidden in the middle of a later paragraph is this sentence: “This commitment also does not apply to AT&T/BellSouth’s Internet Protocol television (IPTV) service.” At first that might seem innocuous, but Burstein has pointed out that AT&T’s always planned on using the IPTV network as that high-speed toll lane it wants Google, Vonage and others to pay extra for. Burstein notes that AT&T isn’t even set up to put quality of service on their existing network — so the agreement not to violate network neutrality on that network is effectively meaningless. It is, he claims, a sleight of hand that successfully fooled a bunch of people into supporting the deal, and will probably help it get approval. AT&T promises not to violate network neutrality on a network they never intended to use that way, and carves out permission to use it on their new network, where they had planned all along to set up additional tollbooths. ”
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20061229/001833.shtml
Somebody pass the lube…..
December 29th, 2006 at 8:11 pm
AT&T Yields to Neutrality, Paves Path to Congress…
This one needs to be watched closely, and Congress kept under pressure. AT&T "…filed a “letter of commitment” with the Federal Communications Commission in which it promises to observe Net Neutrality principles for at least 24 months. No…
December 29th, 2006 at 10:44 pm
[…] Save the Internet Blog » Blog Archive » AT&T Yields to Neutrality, Paves Path to Congress […]
December 30th, 2006 at 12:33 pm
at…
Trojan Horse (2) Originally uploaded by GoGap. SavetheInternet.com calls the att “concessions” and the FCC’s consequent acquiescence in the att/BellSouth merger a “striking victory for Internet freedom advocates”. Although this group deserves…
January 1st, 2007 at 5:30 pm
celebrating these so called “concessions” by AT&T in return for a merger that further enhances its monoplistic hold on telecommunications is like celebrating Neville Chamberlains “Peace in our Time” speech just before WWII.
AT&T has given up nothing for this merger and it has no intention of giving up on its war on meaningful net neutrality. Rather then celebrating this faux victory you should be blasting the FCC democrats for
selling out the american people and caving in to pressure from big business!
January 2nd, 2007 at 11:30 am
To the naysayers, I refer you to the comments of Harold Feld, Ben Scott and Tim Wu (linked to above) for some context in which this victory occurred. I suggest you read those in full but suffice it to say that the real challenge before us is in the Congress that gets to work later this week.
January 3rd, 2007 at 12:06 pm
The only meaningful action is to pass strong laws safeguarding net neutrality. Elected officials are not stupid. Even without understanding the technical aspects of net neutrality they already know that the telecom industry does not spend tens of millions to fill campaign coffers unless its something that heavily favors their industry while hurting the common good. AT&T acknowledging that net neutrality “exists” and agreeing to abide by it for 2yrs in exchange for a mega merger (that will further work against competition) is not a helpful direction to move in. In my opinion this was a gutless Neville Chamberlain type of fight on the part of the democrats and we shouldn’t be celebrating or thanking them for capitulating to an enemy (bigger and stronger thanks to them) that will NEVER stop attempting to do away with net neutrality. These huge behemoth corporations are the problem not the solution!
January 3rd, 2007 at 1:42 pm
Raz — We agree on the goal. I also believe, however, that the AT&T concession is an important step towards getting Congress to make those laws. While the merger conditions are far from perfect, they set an important precedent, which will help us make a more forceful argument for Net Neutrality when the new Congress gets to the business of writing telecommunications law.
January 3rd, 2007 at 2:51 pm
I suppose the AT&T concessions should be considered a victory of sorts if your focused solely on the net neutrality issue. To me the attack on net neutrality is just one small battle of an overall war the corporations are waging against the common man. If a corporation acknowledging the existence of net neutrality is an important step in getting Congress to act for the good of its citizens then what does this say about our representatives? Shouldn’t we the people be outraged about such circumstances rather then accept it as just the way things are and try to make the best of it? Is anyone else out there outraged on this notion that having industry concede that our point is valid is an important step before our representatives will act to protect our interests? If this is how our representatives truly operate then I’m putting all my money on industry as the ultimate winner cause the common man has lost his representation. And by representation I mean a representative who always acts in the best interest of his constituents (corporations are not citizens!) not just when they are petitioned by the people.
January 4th, 2007 at 7:30 pm
Here’s a scary thought. AT&T finally came to the realization that net neutrality could help it fend off unwanted competition.
First, they take U-Verse and HomeZone—which represent the future for AT&T—off the table because they don’t use the internet. These services will be engineered with sufficient quality of service (QOS) technologies to ensure flawless operation.
Second, all traffic to and from the internet will expressly not employ any QOS technologies. All traffic is treated equally.
Third, what services could potentially compete with U-Verse and HomeZone? Internet-based video could. And I’m not talking about shoddy YouTube home videos, I’m talking about real-time, high-quality streaming video delivered from hundreds (thousands? millions?) of internet-based content sites.
But in order for these potential U-Verse and HomeZone killers to grow into something truly threatening to AT&T they need to be able to take advantage of QOS mechanisms in the broadband access network. Anyone that thinks high definition video will work over first come, first served broadband networks hasn’t examined the technology closely enough. Net neutrality expressly makes this illegal. Hence, competitors to U-Verse and HomeZone are not able to develop.
Yes, on the one hand AT&T gives up potential revenue streams. But on the other hand it uses Washington to protect the assets it is investing the most in.
January 5th, 2007 at 5:45 pm
KWalsh - net neutrality is concerned only with discriminatory QoS (i.e. who is sending/receiving). Many (perhaps all) backbone and last-mile networks employ various forms of QoS since it greatly increases the amount of traffic a network can handle without having to increase bandwidth. Basically, realtime data such as VoIP and music/video packets are given high priority while email and non-streaming file downloads get low priority.
January 5th, 2007 at 6:29 pm
Raz – um, no. In the immortal words of one Mr. Vinton Cerf, Chief Internet Evangelist in the land of Google, in his testimony before the Senate Commerce Committee (2.7.2006, http://commerce.senate.gov/pdf/cerf-020706.pdf), “favoring some disfavors others.” Hence, higher priority for some traffic, by definition, results in lower priority for other traffic. It doesn’t matter if the determination of priority is based on willingness to pay or type of traffic, QOS mechanisms are rendered illegal.
My point isn’t whether such mechanisms should or should not be allowed in the interest of fairness. Rather, that the lack of such mechanisms will retard the ability of content owners to provide their customers with better service. I might be willing to pay iTunes, for example, an extra nickel or two so that a movie download can be accomplished in a few minutes rather than a few hours (just like I pay Amazon.com more to get my stuff tomorrow rather than the next day). But the FCC just ensured that I won’t have that option.
January 8th, 2007 at 7:35 pm
KWalsh - “favoring some disfavors others” is refering to discriminatory QoS only. Non-discriminatory QoS is in no way rendered illegal via net neutrality laws introduced by Snowe-Dorgan so the current non-discriminatory use of QoS will in no way be impacted if net neutrality laws are passed.
Perhaps read through the many articles/comments on this site for a better understanding of the difference between non-discriminatory QoS and discriminatory QoS. As long as QoS does not discriminate based on who is sending/receiving (source/owner) then its a perfectly legitimate QoS and every backbone/last-mile network will no doubt continue to use it with no fear of net neutrality laws taking it away.
Net Neutrality helps keep the playing field more even by allowing content providers equal access to the last-mile end users and keeps the power in the end users hands to decide which site/service will be successful.
January 9th, 2007 at 5:18 pm
Well, that explains a lot. You evidently do believe it is technically possible to prioritize some traffic ahead of others without adversely impacting others. Kind of like saying that allowing someone to cut in line at the airport does not result in people behind that point having to wait longer.
January 9th, 2007 at 7:07 pm
KWalsh - Im done responding to you. I could put up with your arrogant tone, but I drawn the line at stupidity.
If you choose not to read the many articles/comments on this site and wish to believe that all QoS will be illegal if net neutrality is made law then no amount of effort on my part to explain the difference between discriminatory and non-discrminatory QoS is going to help.
April 24th, 2007 at 12:28 pm
[…] [AT&T just reported a first-quarter profit of $2.8 billion, compared to $1.4 billion in the 2006 first quarter. The company’s shares have risen a whopping 11 percent since it signed on to Net Neutrality conditions in its BellSouth merger.] […]
July 1st, 2008 at 11:31 pm
[…] devices you can use?” Copps asked, citing the Net Neutrality terms signed on to by AT&T as a condition of their merger with […]