Re: AT&T says there is no duopoly, net neutrality is bad

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Sean Berry <berry () housebsd org>
Date: October 25, 2007 3:39:00 AM EDT
To: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Subject: Re: [IP] AT&T says there is no duopoly, net neutrality is bad


David:

Does QoS address enough of these use cases that we could prioritize  
traffic by tier?  I definitely know that I'd prefer my VOIP traffic  
take higher priority than my video downloads.  I think I'd be happy  
to be able to buy bandwidth like we used to do with frame relay:  
128kbps of "guaranteed" bandwidth, with the rest of 2Mbps or so  
available "as-available" for a certain rate.  So ATT only needs to  
build 128kbps (or some number) * the number of subscribers into each  
region, but when it's not in use, any customer can use the rest of  
the pipe.

I think what we were most concerned about with Net Neutrality was the  
idea of selling access to external corporations: what might work  
better is letting the customer choose what kind of priorities they  
might want: some would want a very affordable "0 bandwidth" or  
minimum connection, to compete with dialup, while those with home  
offices could justify (and leverage) faster guaranteed connections.

--
Sean Berry
berry () housebsd org
414 339 1033

On Wed, 24 Oct 2007, David Farber wrote:

> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: dewayne () warpspeed com (Dewayne Hendricks)
> Date: October 24, 2007 6:09:24 PM EDT
> To: Dewayne-Net Technology List <xyzzy () warpspeed com>
> Subject: [Dewayne-Net] AT&T says there is no duopoly, net  
> neutrality is bad
>
> [Note:  I attended the MW conference yesterday and saw Cicconi's  
> performance. Simply amazing!  He just kept throwing out one zinger  
> after another.  DLH]
>
> POSTED AT 9:49 AM ON OCTOBER 23, 2007
>
> Blogging from the 2007 MW conference: AT&T says there is no  
> duopoly, net neutrality is bad
> <http://www.muniwireless.com/article/articleview/6560/1/23>
>
> It's Day 2 of the Muniwireless Silicon Valley Conference and they  
> have an executive from AT&T talking about municipal wireless networks.
>
> AT&T has not changed its tune. It is still against cities using  
> public funds to compete with private enterprise and believes that  
> communications should be left up to private firms like AT&T.
>
> James Cicconi, Senior Executive VP Legislative and External Affairs  
> for AT&T claims that there is no duopoly and there is enough  
> competition in the market for telecommunications services, so  
> cities should stay out.
>
> What is AT&T's position on net neutrality?
>
> Net neutrality is a challenge for all companies. You spend billions  
> to deploy your assets and net neutrality means someone telling you  
> what you can do with your assets - what you can charge, tiers of  
> service, etc.
>
> "All bits should be treated equal" is a problem for network  
> engineers because one bit is porn another bit is heart surgery,  
> another is email, yet another is voice, another is spam. That  
> everything should be moved equally end to end is ludicrous. It's a  
> more costly way to do things. It's not efficient, according to AT&T.
>
> AT&T cannot build and maintain assets quickly enough to meet the  
> demand. They are spending $19 billion this year. Some of the demand  
> is driven by video. What happens when people start delivering high  
> definition film? They can't build networks fast enough! What's the  
> answer? Effective traffic management.
>
> The antitrust laws can deal with the problems of net neutrality  
> (side note: unfortunately these are not being enforced today). Why  
> should AT&T want to degrade traffic? They will go to someone else  
> (side note again: in a duopoly, you've got Comcast which has been  
> blocking Bittorent traffic).
>
> - - - - -
>
> Note: Given what I have heard here today, the only solution here is  
> structural separation.
>
>
> -------------------------------------------
> Archives: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
> RSS Feed: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
> Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com


-------------------------------------------
Archives: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com