Comments on: AT&T Yields to Neutrality, Paves Path to Congress http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/2006/12/29/att-yields-to-neutrality-paves-path-to-congress/ Tracking the battle over Network Neutrality Fri, 29 Aug 2008 23:19:42 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3 By: Copps Introduces Plan for Internet Freedom : Stop the Propaganda / Feed the Truth http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/2006/12/29/att-yields-to-neutrality-paves-path-to-congress/#comment-121423 Copps Introduces Plan for Internet Freedom : Stop the Propaganda / Feed the Truth Wed, 02 Jul 2008 04:31:20 +0000 http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/2006/12/29/att-yields-to-neutrality-paves-path-to-congress/#comment-121423 [...] devices you can use?” Copps asked, citing the Net Neutrality terms signed on to by AT&T as a condition of their merger with [...] […] devices you can use?” Copps asked, citing the Net Neutrality terms signed on to by AT&T as a condition of their merger with […]

]]> By: MediaChannel.org http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/2006/12/29/att-yields-to-neutrality-paves-path-to-congress/#comment-52848 MediaChannel.org Tue, 24 Apr 2007 16:28:58 +0000 http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/2006/12/29/att-yields-to-neutrality-paves-path-to-congress/#comment-52848 [...] [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.] [...] […] [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.] […]

]]> By: Raz http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/2006/12/29/att-yields-to-neutrality-paves-path-to-congress/#comment-40482 Raz Tue, 09 Jan 2007 23:07:56 +0000 http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/2006/12/29/att-yields-to-neutrality-paves-path-to-congress/#comment-40482 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. 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.

]]> By: KWalsh http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/2006/12/29/att-yields-to-neutrality-paves-path-to-congress/#comment-40478 KWalsh Tue, 09 Jan 2007 21:18:33 +0000 http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/2006/12/29/att-yields-to-neutrality-paves-path-to-congress/#comment-40478 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. 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.

]]> By: Raz http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/2006/12/29/att-yields-to-neutrality-paves-path-to-congress/#comment-40402 Raz Mon, 08 Jan 2007 23:35:38 +0000 http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/2006/12/29/att-yields-to-neutrality-paves-path-to-congress/#comment-40402 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. 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.

]]> By: KWalsh http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/2006/12/29/att-yields-to-neutrality-paves-path-to-congress/#comment-39932 KWalsh Fri, 05 Jan 2007 22:29:06 +0000 http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/2006/12/29/att-yields-to-neutrality-paves-path-to-congress/#comment-39932 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. 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.

]]> By: Raz http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/2006/12/29/att-yields-to-neutrality-paves-path-to-congress/#comment-39927 Raz Fri, 05 Jan 2007 21:45:57 +0000 http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/2006/12/29/att-yields-to-neutrality-paves-path-to-congress/#comment-39927 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. 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.

]]> By: KWalsh http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/2006/12/29/att-yields-to-neutrality-paves-path-to-congress/#comment-39815 KWalsh Thu, 04 Jan 2007 23:30:55 +0000 http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/2006/12/29/att-yields-to-neutrality-paves-path-to-congress/#comment-39815 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. 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.

]]> By: Raz http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/2006/12/29/att-yields-to-neutrality-paves-path-to-congress/#comment-39326 Raz Wed, 03 Jan 2007 18:51:39 +0000 http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/2006/12/29/att-yields-to-neutrality-paves-path-to-congress/#comment-39326 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. 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.

]]> By: tkarr http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/2006/12/29/att-yields-to-neutrality-paves-path-to-congress/#comment-39311 tkarr Wed, 03 Jan 2007 17:42:03 +0000 http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/2006/12/29/att-yields-to-neutrality-paves-path-to-congress/#comment-39311 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. 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.

]]>