Comments on net neutrality irk AT&T (the double edged sword).

[Danoz]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...ewsletter&wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter

It's not a very balanced article to begin with. The AT&T lobbyists are correct that comparing free speech and internet censorship in communist China has nothing to do with the prioritizing of content for network efficiency. There are aspects of net neutrality that try to protect consumers from price gauging, content restriction and prioritization of content as a means of revenue. However, complete network neutrality also bans basic data discrimination which helps networks provide a faster service in general for streaming HD video and webcasting.

 

[FrankR]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...ewsletter&wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter...However, complete network neutrality also bans basic data discrimination which helps networks provide a faster service in general for streaming HD video and webcasting.

Except when (hypothetical scenarios)
your ISP is Comcast; and they descide to restrict streaming from Vudu or Netflix because they want you to 'rent' movies via pay-per-view.

or AT&T wants to restrict access to Vonage.

-frank

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Controlling traffic based on the application is one thing. Some applications demand high throughput and low latency. Some can tolerate high latency with high throughput. And some can deal with high latency and low throughput. It should be up to providers to decide how to handle that. However, it should not be up to them to filter traffic based on who it came from or to engage in anticompetitive behavior.

 

[Marc]

Controlling traffic based on the application is one thing. Some applications demand high throughput and low latency. Some can tolerate high latency with high throughput. And some can deal with high latency and low throughput. It should be up to providers to decide how to handle that. However, it should not be up to them to filter traffic based on who it came from or to engage in anticompetitive behavior.

Which they would use QoS on the protocol (rather than the application) but they could also use QoS as a quasi filter and say they are just doing good network management. After all they aren't blocking Netflix for it's customers, but when the traffic comes from outside it's just given a low priority which makes it hard to use for customers.

AT&T also got exposed recently as "encouraging" it's workers to write to the FCC and complain about the net neutrality changes.

AT&T's top lobbyist, Jim Cicconi, sent a letter to all of the telecom giant's 300,000 employees on Sunday, urging them to express their concerns over a net neutrality proposal under consideration by the Federal Communications Commission. Check out his letter and comments on the Actuarian Outpost Web site.
The letter was the latest move in a lobbying frenzy days before the FCC votes on a proposal to create new net neutrality regulations. High-tech giants wrote to the agency to support the rules, while dozens of lawmakers from both parties have protested the rules as potentially dangerout to economic growth.
"We encourage you, your family and friends to join the voices telling the FCC not to regulate the Internet," Cicconi wrote in his letter. The company verified the letter.
Cicconi explained how employees could use a personal e-mail account to post comments on the FCC's net neutrality Web site to about the rules. He said the comment period had been extended until Thursday, when the agency's five commissioners are scheduled to vote on a proposal that would begin the formalization of rules.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/posttech/2009/10/att_lobbyist_asks_employees_th.html

 

[CuttingEdge100]

I think Net Neutrality was and is the correct way to go