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

Begin forwarded message:

From: Dave Burstein <[email protected]>
Date: December 29, 2006 8:17:23 AM EST
To: [email protected]
Subject: For IP please: AT&T/BellSouth may pass today with hollow Net=20=20
Neutrality

Dave

     I respect your opinion the government should not regulate Net=20=20
Neutrality, and I think your readers can make their own decision. But=20=20
I think neither you nor I want it to go through because AT&T claims=20=20
they promised Net Neutrality but sneaked in a sentence that makes it=20=20
meaningless so I hope you'll pick this up. The first is from Mike=20=20
Masnick at Techdirt, the second a draft from DSL Prime I would=20=20
release except they are hurrying to a vote less than 24 hours after=20=20
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=20=20
Concessions, The Merger Will Be Done


from the fooled-ya deptA few hours ago, we wrote about the=20=20
concessions AT&T agreed to in order to get their merger with=20=20
BellSouth approved -- possibly today. It was a little strange to see=20=20
the concession letter come out late Thursday night before New Years,=20=20
but the concessions seemed genuine enough, and many of the consumer=20=20
groups fighting the deal accepted the terms and agreed that it looked=20=20
like AT&T had agreed to live up to network neutrality rules. Of=20=20
course, the fine print may actually tell a different story.

Dave Burstein, who knows more about DSL than probably just about=20=20
anyone, lets us know that the fine print in the deal actually may=20=20
negate the network neutrality premise. The wording is a little=20=20
tricky, but while they agree not to remove network neutrality from=20=20
their standard network, hidden in the middle of a later paragraph is=20=20
this sentence: "This commitment also does not apply to AT&T/=20
BellSouth's Internet Protocol television (IPTV) service." At first=20=20
that might seem innocuous, but Burstein has pointed out that AT&T's=20=20
always planned on using the IPTV network as that high-speed toll lane=20=20
it wants Google, Vonage and others to pay extra for. Burstein notes=20=20
that AT&T isn't even set up to put quality of service on their=20=20
existing network -- so the agreement not to violate network=20=20
neutrality on that network is effectively meaningless. It is, he=20=20
claims, a sleight of hand that successfully fooled a bunch of people=20=20
into supporting the deal, and will probably help it get approval.=20=20
AT&T promises not to violate network neutrality on a network they=20=20
never intended to use that way, and carves out permission to use it=20=20
on their new network, where they had planned all along to set up=20=20
additional tollbooths.

     and from me (draft)
=93I call them the black ninjas. They work by night and are very, very=20=
=20
good.=94 FCC Chairman Bill Kennard explaining telco lobbyists

=93Jim Cicconi and Bob Quinn are the best lobbyists in Washington,=94=20=20
President of SBC Bill Daley lamented after they beat him a while=20=20
back. They now work for AT&T, and have proven their brilliance by=20=20
convincing most of D.C. they accepted network Neutrality to get the=20=20
BellSouth merger approved, while burying on page 10 a sentence that=20=20
made their concession almost meaningless. Their proposal came out=20=20
Thursday night and I=92ve worked all night. Apologies to non-U.S.=20=20
readers for putting this first, but AP reports they plan to sneak it=20=20
through Friday before the holiday.

      AT&T offer on Net Neutrality sounds good, and might be a model=20=20
to countries like Japan that are considering Net Neutrality rules.=20=20
AT&T agreed =93not to provide =85 any service that privileges, degrades=20=
=20
or prioritizes any packet transmitted over AT&T/BellSouth's wireline=20=20
broadband Internet access service based on its source, ownership or=20=20
destination.=94

      A seemingly innocuous later sentence effectively makes that=20=20
almost meaningless. =93This commitment also does not apply to AT&T/=20
BellSouth's Internet Protocol television (IPTV) service.=94 AT&T has=20=20
always intended to give paying customers priority by routing them=20=20
over  the =93IPTV=94 part of their network, with Alcatel routers and=20=20
Microsoft software  designed for QOS. They don=92t even have the=20=20
equipment for that kind of QOS on what they call =93wireline broadband=20=
=20
Internet access service.=94 The lawyers fighting this in D.C. won=92t=20=20
even discover they=92ve been bamboozled until afterwards if the=20=20
commission goes ahead and rushes this through. The entire set of=20=20
=93concessions=94 remains so insignificant that Merrill Lynch=92s=20=20
=93immaterial=94 judgment still holds.

      The other stuff in the 20 pages adds surprisingly little=20=20
substance.  For example, the 85% DSL promise happens to be the level=20=20
BellSouth has already reached. Most of the special access rates they=20=20
agreed to freeze are ones AT&T CEO, Rick Lindner, told Wall Street=20=20
=93have been declining as a result of competition.=94

     Incredibly effective persuasion, which at least in early drafts=20=20
even bamboozled public interest advocates and Commission Democrats.=20=20
With luck, they=92ll analyze the final filing, released late Thursday,=20=
=20
before making up their mind. It would be scandalous if an $85B merger=20=20
goes through on terms revealed only 12 hours before.
Dave Burstein