dslreports logo
 story category
Can AT&T Just Ignore New Concessions?
Neutrality advocates cheer, ignore fine print...

While AT&T did offer some additional concessions to squeeze through the AT&T BellSouth merger, Kevin Webach (via Techdirt) points out that the post-merger statements by Republican commissioners hint that they may not require the company to actually adhere to them. According to the statement, Tate and Martin believe that "while the Democrat Commissioners may have extracted concessions from AT&T, they in no way bind future Commission action. Thus, to the extent that AT&T has, as a business matter, determined to take certain actions, they are allowed to do so."

Despite some jubilation from the pro-network neutrality crowd, it's not clear that AT&T's 30 month network neutrality promise really means much of anything, since there are no real laws in place, nor clear punishment parameters. It means even less if the FCC, who won't face a recused Conservative majority on future votes, lacks the will to actually enforce their guidelines. Given that Martin has shown that it takes a complete blockade of competing traffic to get the FCC to act -- and AT&T's primary interest is IPTV traffic prioritization -- it's not likely that AT&T's network neutrality promise is anything other than lawyer-speak.
view:
topics flat nest 

RadioDoc

join:2000-05-11
La Grange, IL

RadioDoc

Of course they can

"while the Democrat Commissioners may have extracted concessions from AT&T, they in no way bind future Commission action."

The FCC is never at the mercy of prior acts. They'll either just decide it was a bad idea and repeal the rule or Congress will pass a law prohibiting its enforcement. "Concessions" are even wimpier and have no basis in law.

King P
Don't blame me. I voted for Ron Paul
Premium Member
join:2004-11-17
Murfreesboro, TN

King P

Premium Member

Re: Of course they can

I agree. If the FCC really cared about concessions, then we'd all have Fiber run to our homes, as per the Telecom Act of 1996...
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD

nasadude to RadioDoc

Member

to RadioDoc
agreed.

The ILECs didn't pay too much attention to the 1996 law, why would they pay attention to anything they don't like?
moonpuppy (banned)
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD

moonpuppy (banned) to RadioDoc

Member

to RadioDoc
Easier to beg forgiveness than ask permission.

morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000

1 edit

morbo

Member

can't trust AT&T

this just reinforces the view that you can't trust AT&T

en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA

en102

Member

Re: can't trust AT&T

Verizon messed up on me many times... what would make me think at&t is any different ?
ross7
join:2000-08-16

2 edits

ross7

Member

Well, isn't that nice?

Did we expect actual protection from the Telco FCC dept.?

Citizens/consumers -0-
Telco douche-bags -4-
bmn
? ? ?

join:2001-03-15
hiatus

1 edit

bmn

Yet another example...

Of the best government lobbyist money can buy at work.

Seriously, let's get a bunch of concessions, strip them of any real force and make them time limited.

Yeah, nice concessions.

POB
Res Firma Mitescere Nescit
Premium Member
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA

2 edits

POB

Premium Member

Hogwash

While AT&T did offer some additional concessions to squeeze through the AT&T BellSouth merger, Kevin Webach (via Techdirt) points out that the post-merger statements by Republican commissioners hint that they may not require the company to actually adhere to them. According to the statement, Tate and Martin believe that "while the Democrat Commissioners may have extracted concessions from AT&T, they in no way bind future Commission action. Thus, to the extent that AT&T has, as a business matter, determined to take certain actions, they are allowed to do so."
Which is a load of bullshit because of the letter of commitment the telco filed with the FCC wherein it promises to to observe Net Neutrality principles for at least 30 months thereafter the Merging Closing Date.

According to AT&T's letter, the merged company:

"… commits that it will maintain a neutral network and neutral routing in its wireline broadband Internet access service. This commitment shall be satisfied by AT&T/BellSouth's agreement not to provide or to sell to Internet content, application, or service providers, including those affiliated with AT&T/BellSouth, 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."

Whatever fantasyland Tate & Martin are living in, they cannot simply ignore the stipulations spelled out in the 20 pg concession letter they filed with the FCC as a condition for approval.

Addendum

Consumer effects of AT&T/BellSouth Merger

calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA

calvoiper

Member

Re: Hogwash

Sure they can.

They are ignoring many requirements of TA'96, some of them explicitly through "forebearance" and some of them implicitly, so ignoring some "commitment" that Ed Whitacre had some toady write up is an easy task....

calvoiper

Alpine6
Premium Member
join:2000-01-11
Atlanta, GA

1 recommendation

Alpine6

Premium Member

Typical...

Pure speculation, which is all the net-neutrality "problem" is these days.

Can we stop the whining until there's actually a problem? That'd just be great (even though I know it's a pipe dream...)

Adam

POB
Res Firma Mitescere Nescit
Premium Member
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA

1 recommendation

POB

Premium Member

Re: Typical...

said by Alpine6:

Pure speculation, which is all the net-neutrality "problem" is these days.

Can we stop the whining until there's actually a problem? That'd just be great (even though I know it's a pipe dream...)

Adam
Right. Pure whining and no problem whatsoever. Let's just wait until after the telcos and/or cable cos. start extorting money for unimpeded content on the Net, and then we can worry about it. The subject matter is just all hypothetical anyway. I don't mind telling you, Adam, that ignorance like yours is spectacularly breathtaking. Have you ever actually had any thoughts independent of Fox News?
EngineerDave
join:2001-08-27
Birmingham, AL

EngineerDave

Member

Government is not the answer.

said by POB:

said by Alpine6:

Pure speculation, which is all the net-neutrality "problem" is these days.

Can we stop the whining until there's actually a problem? That'd just be great (even though I know it's a pipe dream...)

Adam
Right. Pure whining and no problem whatsoever. Let's just wait until after the telcos and/or cable cos. start extorting money for unimpeded content on the Net, and then we can worry about it. The subject matter is just all hypothetical anyway. I don't mind telling you, Adam, that ignorance like yours is spectacularly breathtaking. Have you ever actually had any thoughts independent of Fox News?
Your notion that the government is the answer to all your problems is "spectacularly breathtaking." Yeah, government knows how to get things done in an efficient manner. That is freaking hilarious. If you're not happy with the policies of your provider, choose another one. Get a clue, buddy.

POB
Res Firma Mitescere Nescit
Premium Member
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA

POB

Premium Member

Re: Government is not the answer.

said by EngineerDave:

Your notion that the government is the answer to all your problems is "spectacularly breathtaking."

Yeah, government knows how to get things done in an efficient manner. That is freaking hilarious. If you're not happy with the policies of your provider, choose another one. Get a clue, buddy.
All my problems? Um, no, Dave. The discussion here is Network Neutrality. Period. Go back and reread the title of this thread and ensuing commentary. I'll wait.

Secondly, your ISP has zip to do with NN. If telcos & cable cos. et al. control the pipes as to what content consumers see, the ISP will be the very least of your worries. Try educating yourself with the discussion at hand before you chime in with ignorant comments. Buddy.
EngineerDave
join:2001-08-27
Birmingham, AL

1 recommendation

EngineerDave

Member

Re: Government is not the answer.

I am positive that I know plenty about net neutrality. I also know that you should change your signature to "The Troll." Take your socialism and shove it.

POB
Res Firma Mitescere Nescit
Premium Member
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA

POB

Premium Member

Re: Government is not the answer.

said by EngineerDave:

I am positive that I know plenty about net neutrality. I also know that you should change your signature to "The Troll." Take your socialism and shove it.
Did you come up with that all by yourself. Or did you have check the TPM o'the day on Fox and/or Crush Lardbaugh? Poof. Dave the tech is no more.
EngineerDave
join:2001-08-27
Birmingham, AL

EngineerDave

Member

Re: Government is not the answer.

Troll,

I don't see how your response has anything to do with net neutrality. The best way to make an impact with a corporation is through their pocketbook. If business slows, obviously, they are going to take measures to remedy the problem. It's simple. My ISP and/or telco and/or cable company is interfering with my VOIP, I get another provider. If it is as big of a problem as you think it is, the providers will lose customers very quickly.

envoid
join:2002-12-21
Duluth, GA

envoid

Member

Re: Government is not the answer.

True, best way to get at them is through their pocketbooks, but what if you have no choice and either go with them or have no broadband/Internet access?
EngineerDave
join:2001-08-27
Birmingham, AL

EngineerDave

Member

Re: Government is not the answer.

Well, I would have to evaluate how big of an issue I have with said provider. If I truely have only one choice for broadband, and they aren't offering what I want, I suppose I would make a part-time job of bugging the crap out of them until they rectify the situation (i.e. call them, email, write letters). What would you do?
ross7
join:2000-08-16

ross7

Member

Re: Government is not the answer.

said by EngineerDave:

Well, I would have to evaluate how big of an issue I have with said provider. If I truely have only one choice for broadband, and they aren't offering what I want, I suppose I would make a part-time job of bugging the crap out of them until they rectify the situation (i.e. call them, email, write letters). What would you do?
Hmmm, you buggin' them, while they're really buggin' you...that's alot o'buggin! Bah, humbug.

morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000

morbo to EngineerDave

Member

to EngineerDave
hilarious. yes, tell us more about how you bugging the crap out of them will make them change their national policy of screwing over consumers and ecommerce with their net domination policy. wait--wait--let me get comfortable. ok.
EngineerDave
join:2001-08-27
Birmingham, AL

EngineerDave

Member

Re: Government is not the answer.

Again, if it was a big enough problem for me and I had no other provider to choose, I would harass them everyday until the situation was rectified. If there are enough people complaining, they will rectify the situation. The majority of consumers will be complaining to their only provider if it is as big of a problem as the network neutrality crowd claims it could be. I think the majority of consumers want a reliable product at a reasonable price. Also, I don't think adding the government in the mix is a good means of achieving either.
backness
join:2005-07-08
K2P OW2

backness

Member

Re: Government is not the answer.

well I'm fairly sure that if you were an upstart company who had invested your life savings in your e-business, you would have a slightly different opinion about this matter. With no neutrality, your site could be blocked or slowed to the point of being useless based only on the fact that your product or service competes directly with a company that has the resources to pay the extortion.

morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000

morbo

Member

Re: Government is not the answer.

his answer? just keep bugging them! eventually they will HAVE to respond to him.

never underestimate the power of grandiose thinking...
kcir
join:2005-07-30
Butner, NC

kcir to Alpine6

Member

to Alpine6
Why the worry of net neutrality ? There is real broadband competition, right? If you can't get what you want from one provider go with another...

calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA

calvoiper

Member

Re: Typical...

said by kcir:

...There is real broadband competition, right? If you can't get what you want from one provider go with another...
I'll let someone else respond to your claim that there is "real competition" in broadband--starting perhaps with those who can't obtain any broadband (save horrendously expensive satellite service) currently.

As for the ability to switch, there are at least two major problems.

First, this isn't like stopping at Jewell or Safeway if Kroger's doesn't have the sausage you're looking for. Broadband is a much more long-term commitment where you won't be switching providers every week. Accordingly, each provider has more market power with its subscribers than a vendor who has only customers who can easily visit competitors.

Second, this is really about the creation of a market structure. If we see a market where ISP service is subsidized by the content providers (as local telephone was subsidized by long distance) then we also see a market where the larger providers have extensive interlocking relationships and it's much harder for new, smaller providers to break into commerce because they don't have the "heft" to play at the same table. This applies to both new content providers (who would have to "pay to play" and get acceptable delivery from ISPs) and new ISPs (including, particularly, wireless providers) who would be at a disadvantage because they would have such small initial subscriber numbers that the large content providers wouldn't want to bother paying them the "traffic preference fees" that they would pay large ISPs.

The real question is whether you want to see a large, independent provider marketplace or you want to see one where most of the content is controlled by fewer players who have and maintain cozy financial relationships (including joint ownership) with major ISPs.

calvoiper
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD

nasadude to Alpine6

Member

to Alpine6
said by Alpine6:

....

Can we stop the whining until there's actually a problem? That'd just be great (even though I know it's a pipe dream...)

Adam
actually, you're absolutely right. Telecom and broadband in the U.S. is screwed for many years to come because of the policies of the FCC.

We may as well shut up and bend over, 'cause it ain't gonna get better anytime soon.

mrbill66
@cox.net

mrbill66

Anon

as a Utility service

This is why the burden of wires and cable ownership should be removed from the Telco and Cableco and rolled to a nationwide Utility comp. This co. sole purpose would be to maintain, manage, upgrade wire, cable, fiber to the home (all Homes) . We would then pay a minimum "maintenance fee" for the wire.

Then ATT and Verizon, Quest, Comcast, Cox and any noobie could compete nationwide with their offerings without merging to gain customers. Heck we might even get direct offerings from the Studios bypassing what are now gatekeeper known as wire holders. Maybe CBS or Fox or Universal wants to offer me something or some service directly from them. But that is why the Telcos, Cablecos pay big bucks to keep the wires under their control. ACCESS is CONTROL...plus billions to lobbyist for congress bribes.

What a concept.

Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02

Karl Bode

News Guy

Re: as a Utility service

Click for full size
graphic AT&T

richardpor
Fur it up
join:2003-04-19
Portland, OR

richardpor

Member

Enough Said

»online.wsj.com/article/S ··· =opinion

Net neutrality is nothing more than concessions for Google, Microsoft and EBay with large paid lobbing staff. It is the small guy that will be hurt because the big boys can hog all the bandwidth they can get and pay the same rate as somebody like small mom and pop business that uses less than %1 of the capacity.

POB
Res Firma Mitescere Nescit
Premium Member
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA

POB

Premium Member

Re: Enough Said

said by richardpor:

»online.wsj.com/article/S ··· =opinion

Net neutrality is nothing more than concessions for Google, Microsoft and EBay with large paid lobbing staff. It is the small guy that will be hurt because the big boys can hog all the bandwidth they can get and pay the same rate as somebody like small mom and pop business that uses less than %1 of the capacity.
Well if a Wall Street Journal opinion says that NN is just a "shakedown," mind you -an opinion written by, for and of the corporations on Wall Street- then it MUST be true! Yessiree, Bob. Absolutely, positively the truth, praise Jaysus, hallelujah!

And all them silly groups agigtating for NN are just a buncha hippie libruls who don't know nuttin' bout the ways of the Wall Street world. If it's profitable for Wall Street, then it MUST be good for consumers!

karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
Moscow, ID

karlmarx to richardpor

Member

to richardpor
How is the 'small guy' hurt by net neutrality? The small guy is the WINNER with net neutrality. It guarantees that their traffic is just as important as google and microsoft. They get what they pay for. If they buy a T-1, then then get 1.5mb/sec of traffic. If they buy a 100mb pipe, then they get 100mb of speed. Where in the world do you get the idea that google, or ebay, or microsoft BENEFIT with net neutrality?

calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA

calvoiper

Member

Re: Enough Said

Google benefits because a large part of its business is serving the small content providers--selling them advertising options, paying them for carrying ads Google has sold to others, etc. In other words, what's good for the little guy is good for that part of Google that serves the little guy. (If the market coalesces into just ATT, VZ, 2 or 3 cable ISPs and their captive content providers, then Google loses a big market.)

As for ebay and Microsoft, without current major ISP lock-ins, they too could be damaged by preferential treatment given to ISP captive content providers.

calvoiper

Dagda1175
join:2001-06-17
Goleta, CA

Dagda1175

Member

If you dont like a company....

...dont stay with them. With two cable companies and a whole bunch of dsl companies I could switch every few months until i found something I liked.

•••••

asdfdfdfdfdf
@Level3.net

asdfdfdfdfdf

Anon

Don't be distracted by the apologists...

and their attempts to turn this into a debate about network neutrality.

The topic is this:
ATT supposedly made commitments in return for copps and adelstein signing off on the merger.
Copps and adelstein signed off on the merger under the belief that ATT would be bound by these commitments.
Martin and Tate pissed all over it and are essentially threatening to negate the conditions under which copps and adelstein went along with the merger.

The issue isn't anyone's opinions about network neutrality. It is about the possible sleazy double dealing of martin. There should be investigation into the contacts martin and Tate had with ATT and whether there is reason to believe that ATT knew about this when they put forth these commitments/ whether there was some spoken or unspoken understanding between martin and ATT that martin and tate would scuttle the conditions.
At the very least, martin and tate have made it clear that they have no intention of seeing the conditions enforced. Copps and Adelstein should rescind their support before the written order.
richny
join:2003-07-12
eieio

richny

Member

same old ignorant complaints

Stop your hatred for Corporate America.
The people that build and maintain the networks SHOULD GET PAID. How long can a company forced to sell connections to competitors get away with skimping on their bandwidth? Maybe if the service degrades from greed like you wrongly predict, there wouldn't be so many people making asinine posts like these on forums.

•••••
Zoder
join:2002-04-16
Miami, FL

Zoder

Member

If this turns out to be true.

At least C-Span should be entertaining when Martin and Tate are dragged before the Senate and House telecommunications committees to explain why they aren't enforcing the concessions.