AT&T Agrees to Net Neutrality Conditions |
| Print | |
|
Friday December 29, 2006
|
|||||||||
|
Harold Feld (and then the MSM) notes that AT&T has agreed to a series of new conditions in order to obtain approval for its proposed merger with BellSouth. Of greatest interest is the fact that the conditions include some very explicit net neutrality conditions: Update: Far more analysis on the commitment with praise from Wu and Isenberg, and criticism/concern from Crawford, Werbach, and Burstein. Comments (4)
Rob Hyndman
said:
|
|||||||||
|
... Techdirt notes that they may have done so with their fingers crossed: [ link ] |
|
Keeping options open There are a bunch of exclusions that AT&T has carved out, including the ability to discriminate on entire classes of service and its own IPTV service. I have a discussion of these at [ link ] |
|
Baby Steps In Canada we already have, but don't enforce Net Neutrality. Section 36 of the act states that you must not influence the purpose of communications carried. That AT&T has decided to play nice in order to 'get something', is just selling short. Two years down the road, you've got less choice, and still don't have a neutral net. This isn't an issue that can be solved by the ISP's promising to play nice so they can consolidate even more -- unless they promise to play nice forever. Section 36 is being violated in Canada. We have Telus blocking third party SMTP services on it's networks, forcing Telus subscribers to use their mail service and eliminating any opportunity for premium SMTP services. This would seem to violate Section 36. Next you've got Shaw, creating queue-jumping services, that in so doing, artificially delay other packets. They're trying to sell it as something extra, when in reality, bandwidth is a starvation economy, and those who pay for higher tiers, do so at the direct expense of those who don't. Artifical delay in this manner would seem to violate Section 36. What we really need is a CRTC that is not a group of telecom gladhanders and fewer dirty MPs like Bev Oda. The framework is there, all we need is a few good representatives to stand up for the consumer. We need to enforce Section 36, and pass more laws that clarify the explicit meaning of this fundamental principle. Until then, we really need to stop the consolidation, as the sole reason net neutrality is such a problem, is that there is insufficient choice in the market place. |
|
... From "You ain't usin' ma pipes for free!" to "Look at all these ways we're cooperating!"? Yeah, right. This is a token effort at best. |
We want to enhance competition and investment in this country, and this is why we adopted this policy back in 2008 for the AWS spectrum. Let me say that the price went down by an average of 11% since then, and we will continue this way with the 700 megahertz spectrum. We launched consultation with the industry to make sure that we enhance competition and provide better choice and better rates for our consumers.
Last week I wrote about the National Post seeking $150 licences for posting short excerpts online. It appears that the paper has now dropped the system.
Mar.12/13Comments (1)
Subscribe to this comment's feed