AT&T/BellSouth may pass today with hollow Net Neutrality

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Dave Burstein <daveb () dslprime com>
Date: December 29, 2006 8:17:23 AM EST
To: dave () farber net
Subject: For IP please: AT&T/BellSouth may pass today with hollow Net  
Neutrality

Dave

    I respect your opinion the government should not regulate Net  
Neutrality, and I think your readers can make their own decision. But  
I think neither you nor I want it to go through because AT&T claims  
they promised Net Neutrality but sneaked in a sentence that makes it  
meaningless so I hope you'll pick this up. The first is from Mike  
Masnick at Techdirt, the second a draft from DSL Prime I would  
release except they are hurrying to a vote less than 24 hours after  
the final and deceptive AT&T proposal came out.

From Mike

And By The Time Anyone Reads The Sneaky Fine Print On AT&T's  
Concessions, The Merger Will Be Done


from the fooled-ya deptA few hours ago, we wrote about the  
concessions AT&T agreed to in order to get their merger with  
BellSouth approved -- possibly today. It was a little strange to see  
the concession letter come out late Thursday night before New Years,  
but the concessions seemed genuine enough, and many of the consumer  
groups fighting the deal accepted the terms and agreed that it looked  
like AT&T had agreed to live up to network neutrality rules. Of  
course, the fine print may actually tell a different story.

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.

    and from me (draft)
“I call them the black ninjas. They work by night and are very, very  
good.” FCC Chairman Bill Kennard explaining telco lobbyists

“Jim Cicconi and Bob Quinn are the best lobbyists in Washington,”  
President of SBC Bill Daley lamented after they beat him a while  
back. They now work for AT&T, and have proven their brilliance by  
convincing most of D.C. they accepted network Neutrality to get the  
BellSouth merger approved, while burying on page 10 a sentence that  
made their concession almost meaningless. Their proposal came out  
Thursday night and I’ve worked all night. Apologies to non-U.S.  
readers for putting this first, but AP reports they plan to sneak it  
through Friday before the holiday.

     AT&T offer on Net Neutrality sounds good, and might be a model  
to countries like Japan that are considering Net Neutrality rules.  
AT&T agreed “not to provide … 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.”

     A seemingly innocuous later sentence effectively makes that  
almost meaningless. “This commitment also does not apply to AT&T/ 
BellSouth's Internet Protocol television (IPTV) service.” AT&T has  
always intended to give paying customers priority by routing them  
over  the “IPTV” part of their network, with Alcatel routers and  
Microsoft software  designed for QOS. They don’t even have the  
equipment for that kind of QOS on what they call “wireline broadband  
Internet access service.” The lawyers fighting this in D.C. won’t  
even discover they’ve been bamboozled until afterwards if the  
commission goes ahead and rushes this through. The entire set of  
“concessions” remains so insignificant that Merrill Lynch’s  
“immaterial” judgment still holds.

     The other stuff in the 20 pages adds surprisingly little  
substance.  For example, the 85% DSL promise happens to be the level  
BellSouth has already reached. Most of the special access rates they  
agreed to freeze are ones AT&T CEO, Rick Lindner, told Wall Street  
“have been declining as a result of competition.”

    Incredibly effective persuasion, which at least in early drafts  
even bamboozled public interest advocates and Commission Democrats.  
With luck, they’ll analyze the final filing, released late Thursday,  
before making up their mind. It would be scandalous if an $85B merger  
goes through on terms revealed only 12 hours before.
Dave Burstein

-------------------------------------------
<HR>
You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org<BR>To manage your subscription, go to<BR>  <A 
HREF="http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip";>http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip</A><P>Archives at: <A 
HREF="http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/intere
Archives: [LIST_ARCHIVES_URL]
Modify Your Subscription: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=1788750&user_secret=2262158c
Unsubscribe: http://v2.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?id=1788750-2262158c-80n7q4r2
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com