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

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Bob Frankston" <bob37-2 () bobf frankston com>
Date: October 24, 2007 11:46:48 PM EDT
To: <dave () farber net>, <ip () v2 listbox com>
Cc: "'Dewayne Hendricks'" <dewayne () warpspeed com>
Subject: RE: [IP] AT&T says there is no duopoly, net neutrality is bad

NN is a great meme for feeding the rage. We can't risk legislation  
that legitimizes compromises like ATT's promises in the last merger.  
We can't risk structural separation either because it replaces a  
marketplace with more rules.

The problem is fundamental and inherent -- as long as the service  
providers control the transport there cannot be a marketplace. We  
must learn the lessons of the CLEC debacle and settle for nothing less.

The rage is on our side and will build because there the carriers  
have a fiduciary responsibility to misbehave given they must fund the  
transport out of service revenue but the more transport we have the  
more service revenue (as usualhttp://www.frankston.com/? 
Name=AssuringScarcity).

The only stable state is to recognize that the concept  
telecommunications as a single entity is Ptolemaic – only surviving  
by a never-ending process of adding epicycles to the Regulatorium.  
It's no different from funding highways by having men with pikes  
charging travelers for use of their private turnpikes or the modern  
version – funding the road with the revenue from speed traps.

Divestiture showed the industry can change when an external catalyst  
forces it to face up to reality and then the obstacles seem to just  
melt away. DV-I cut it the wrong way but DV-II can be based has a  
real example of the success of Internet (prototype though it is) and  
I'm willing to forgive the past in return for gaining the future.

We can use the threat of antitrust and first amendment considerations  
but in the end the industry itself knows it has a problem but needs  
an external force (like the virtual Judge Greene) to make it face up  
the reality of its situation. It has huge debt and expenses but its  
control is eroding. And as people begin to expect NN, even if they  
can’t define it, it will be hard to explain why we must buy services  
rather than owning the transport.

-----Original Message-----
From: David Farber [mailto:dave () farber net]
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 22:06
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