tabacco
My RSS Feeds
AT&T Agrees To “Net Neutrality”: Who, What, When, Where, Why & How + For How Long? - RI10
posted Saturday, 6 January 2007
AT&T Agrees To “Net
Neutrality”: Who, What,
When, Where, Why & How
+ For How Long? - RI10
Headlines for December 29, 2006
AT&T Agrees to Net Neutrality
In other news, the telecom giant AT&T has agreed to adhere to net neutrality. Net neutrality is the concept that everyone, everywhere, should have free, universal and non-discriminatory access to the Internet. AT&T made the pledge as part of its efforts to win FCC approval for its merger with Bell South.
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/12/29/1446212
AT&T's net-neutrality move may set precedent
By Jim Puzzanghera
Los Angeles Times
Saturday, January 6, 2007 - Page updated at 12:00 AM
CEO Edward Whitacre Jr.
may have doused debate
he ignited
WASHINGTON — Edward Whitacre Jr., then chief executive of SBC, ignited an impassioned online debate about creating toll lanes on the Internet in late 2005, when he called Google and Yahoo! "nuts" for expecting free use of his company's network to deliver their content.
A little more than a year later, Whitacre may have taken a big step toward dousing that debate.
As head of the muscular new AT&T — SBC took the name when it acquired the venerable long-distance giant — Whitacre surprisingly agreed last week that his company would not sell premium delivery of Web content for the next two years. His decision could spur Congress to extend the ban to all Internet providers.
AT&T and other telecommunications companies fought furiously last year to block congressional proposals mandating such nondiscriminatory treatment of content, known as network neutrality. They warned that those rules would inhibit new spending on high-speed data lines and deprive network builders of a way to recoup their investments.
But AT&T was forced to agree to treat all online content the same to gain Federal Communications Commission approval of its purchase of BellSouth. The $86 billion deal, which the FCC unanimously approved Dec. 29, makes AT&T the dominant phone company in 22 states, including California, and the nation's largest provider of high-speed Internet service.
Advocates of network-neutrality requirements now argue that if a behemoth such as AT&T can build its data highways without charging Web sites for faster delivery of video and other bandwidth-devouring services, so can other providers.
"It sets a key precedent going forward about what we should expect from the big telecommunications companies," said FCC Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein, one of two Democrats who used their temporary leverage on the Republican-controlled commission to extract the concession.
Net-neutrality backers
Key congressional supporters of network neutrality plan to reintroduce their legislation soon, hoping AT&T's decision elevates the policy into law. And AT&T's pledge not to discriminate among Internet content, contained largely in a two-sentence paragraph, may rob neutrality opponents of one of their most effective arguments — that the issue is too vague to be precisely defined.
"You have a single paragraph that has a rule that a fifth-grader can understand: Treat people the same," said Timothy Wu, a Columbia University law professor who has faced that argument when testifying to Congress in favor of network neutrality. "This will set a baseline and a standard."
AT&T's concession improves the outlook for a new law, but it will still be difficult for supporters to pass legislation this year, said Blair Levin, a telecommunications analyst at brokerage Stifel, Nicolaus.
The phone and cable companies who sell high-speed Internet service still have clout on Capitol Hill and aren't giving up. AT&T emphasized that its concession was made purely out of necessity and for a limited time.
"We continue to believe that net-neutrality regulations are unwarranted and unwise," said Jim Cicconi, AT&T's senior executive vice president for external and legislative affairs.
Verizon and other network owners also strongly oppose any neutrality mandate, portraying AT&T's concession in the same way — an isolated strategic decision that should not apply industrywide.
FCC Chairman Kevin Martin agreed. He joined with fellow Republican Commissioner Deborah Taylor Tate in a strongly worded assertion that the FCC was not embracing a policy banning tiered pricing.
"We continue to believe such a requirement is not necessary and may impede infrastructure deployment," they said.
The FCC's two Democrats, Adelstein and Michael J. Copps, had the power to extract the AT&T concession and several others because Republican Robert McDowell sat out the proceedings because he had previously worked for an association of smaller phone companies that opposed the BellSouth acquisition.
New Dem muscle
That isolated instance of Democratic clout on the panel foreshadowed the party's new muscle as the majority in Congress. Democrats have been much more supportive of prohibiting tiered Internet pricing.
Rep. Edward J. Markey, D-Mass., who sponsored a network-neutrality bill last year, will become head of the House telecommunications and Internet subcommittee and plans to introduce his bill again and hold hearings. He called AT&T's concession "an important keystone" for legislation.
Paul Misener, vice president for global public policy at Amazon.com, one of several Internet giants that have lobbied for network neutrality, said it's important to have AT&T's promise codified for the industry.
"Right now, it's a great rule for AT&T customers," he said. "Somehow this has to be taken nationwide to all broadband consumers."
But the road ahead in Congress is difficult. Markey's proposal was defeated 269-152 in the spring. The issue fared better in a Senate committee three weeks later but still lost on an 11-11 tie as an amendment to a broader telecommunications bill.
The broader bill, which stalled last year, may not be reintroduced, making it harder for the relatively obscure net neutrality issue to come to a vote in the full House and Senate.
But Art Brodsky of Public Knowledge, an advocacy group that supports net neutrality, is "cautiously hopeful" about the chances that AT&T's concession will become law for all Internet providers.
"You have a major section of the industry that's signed on," he said, "and it will be very hard for them to go back and say, 'We didn't mean it.' "
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2003511843_netneutrality06.html
Push for Net neutrality mandate grows
By Anne Broache
http://news.com.com/Push+for+Net+neutrality+mandate+grows/2100-1028_3-6051062.html
Story last modified Mon Mar 20 07:03:37 PST 2006
The American Association of Retired Persons, better known as the AARP, may be more famous for its lobbying muscle on pension plans and Medicare, but now it's taking up a new platform: keeping the Internet free and open for the age 50-plus set.
The 35 million-member group is among a growing list of companies and organizations that signed a new letter Thursday urging senators to require Net neutrality principles by law. Also called network neutrality, it's the idea that the companies that own the broadband pipes should not be able to configure their networks in a way that plays favorites--allowing them, for example, to transmit their own services at faster speeds, or to charge Net content and application companies a fee for similar fast delivery.
"We're not traditionally someone who would be involved in technology legislation and things of that nature, but this has a direct impact on our members and their lifestyles," said AARP spokesman Mark Kitchens.
After all, the baby-boomer contingent is going online in droves, he said. In a survey of members in the age 50-to-59 range, 72 percent reported accessing the Net on a regular basis, and the number of Net-surfing retirees in general is growing "exponentially," he said.
Executives at Verizon Communications, BellSouth and the now-merged AT&T and SBC Communications have recently talked about the desirability of such a two-tiered Internet in which they could choose to favor some services--especially video--over others. Those companies are spending billions to improve their networks and appear to be trying to find new sources of revenue.
No company seems to have created such an Internet "fast lane" yet, prompting the big telecommunications companies and Cisco Systems to argue that concerns are theoretical and new laws are unnecessary. Free-market analysts have argued that it's an issue best regulated by the marketplace itself, albeit with ample penalties for "anticompetitive" behavior on a case-by-case basis.
Chatter in recent weeks has stretched all the way from Capitol Hill, where Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon recently introduced a bill that would ban a Net "fast lane," to San Jose, Calif., where attendees at an annual Internet phone conference engaged in debate.
Thursday's letter was prompted in no small part by Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Stevens' tentative comments earlier this week, said Art Brodsky, a spokesman for the advocacy group Public Knowledge, which has been coordinating some of the pro-Net neutrality efforts. Stevens said he supported the idea but wasn't sure it would make it into his committee's much-anticipated overhaul of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, which is expected sometime after the Easter congressional recess.
Now on News.com:
* CES: Like Woodstock for marketing execs
* The legal rights to your avatar
* A jolt of power without the wires
* Photos: Revving up for the big show in Detroit
* Extra: Walk or talk? Pick one.
Sixty-four companies and organizations sent an identical letter earlier this month to the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which wrote Net neutrality provisions into an earlier telecommunications reform draft but not to the extent desired by several Internet content providers. A new draft of that legislation is still in progress.
Besides the AARP, the new letter counts five other new signatories: Adobe Systems, BT America, the Digital Media Association, Sony Electronics and the Business Software Alliance. The original group included Amazon.com, the American Association of Libraries, EarthLink, eBay, Google, Match.com, Microsoft, Skype, TiVo and Yahoo.
The AARP's position is no different from that of other consumer-oriented lobbying forces on the list: that "unfettered" Internet access is essential to any consumers' bill of rights. Said Kitchens: "We are concerned that if open access is not protected, consumers will have less access to the Internet and smaller content providers might get squeezed out of the marketplace."
CNET News.com's Declan McCullagh contributed to this report.
http://news.com.com/Push+for+Net+neutrality+mandate+grows/2100-1028_3-6051062.html?tag=st.rn
Tabacco: I consider myself both a funnel and a filter. I funnel information, not readily available on the Mass Media, which is ignored and/or suppressed. I filter out the irrelevancies and trivialities to save both the time and effort of my Readers and bring consternation to the enemies of Truth & Fairness! When you read Tabacco, if you don’t learn something NEW, I’ve wasted your time.
In 1981's 'Body Heat', Kathleen Turner said, "Knowledge is power".
T.A.B.A.C.C.O. (Truth About Business And Congressional Crimes Organization)
comments