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

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Matthew Tarpy" <tarpy () tarpify com>
Date: October 25, 2007 8:20:20 AM EDT
To: <dave () farber net>, <ip () v2 listbox com>
Subject: RE: [IP] AT&T says there is no duopoly, net neutrality is bad

Hi Dave--

For IP if you wish...I've become very confused with the various sides on
the Net Neutrality debate that has erupted on this list...maybe it's
because I'm up way earlier than usual, but I can't tell what people are
thinking anymore.

My question for all sides is, do you think that a network provider has
the right to shape traffic and apply QoS rules to traffic that
transverses their pipes?

If so, under what conditions are this permissible? Should the provider
be able to sell tiered residential accounts (for instance, $40/month
gets you your typical Comcast HSI package, but for $125/month you get
guaranteed latency times and priority routing for your packets?) Do you
not think that will create a digital divide of haves and have-nots that
is nothing more than economic (class) based? Hasn't an always-on
connection to the internet become somewhat of a de facto public utility
akin to electric service or sewers? And what about lack of transparency?
Most of what Comcast is doing (except for the spoofing of packets) seems
to me to be a legitimate network stability measure, but they ought to be
upfront about it.

To those who feel that carriers shouldn't be able to do tier traffic, my
question is why? Should network providers not be able to react to the
usage of their network to increase stability, limit activity that is
theft at worst, and in a gray nebula of legality at best? Are your
concerns based on the lack of transparency of some of the players
(Comcast) or that you fundamentally feel that a packet is a packet is a
packet?

Matthew


-----Original Message-----
From: David Farber [mailto:dave () farber net]
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 9:06 PM
To: ip () v2 listbox com
Subject: [IP] AT&T says there is no duopoly, net neutrality is bad



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