Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Q&A with AT&T spinner Cicconi on Net Neutrality

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
Touchdown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-22-06 09:25 AM
Original message
Q&A with AT&T spinner Cicconi on Net Neutrality
Just thought what the current double speak is all about. I know it's a power grab, and a greed thing on the part of big pipe providers. You think you'll ever see Broadband for less than $50 a month if they succeed? RRRRRRiiiiiiiight!

Jim Cicconi, senior executive vice president for External and Legislative Affairs

What is net neutrality all about?
At its core, it's about consumer protection. Consumers should have unencumbered access to the Internet and not be subject to blocked content. AT&T vigorously supports net neutrality as defined by the FCC last August when it laid out its "New Principles to Preserve and Promote the Open and Interconnected Nature of Public Internet:"

Consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice;
Consumers are entitled to run applications and services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement;
Consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network;
Consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers.
Sounds reasonable. Where's the disagreement?
Some Internet content providers have hijacked the concept of net neutrality away from consumers and made it a rallying cry to protect their business interests.
Here's the basic premise: We invest billions in our broadband network, which gives content providers popular Web sites, VoIP providers and so forth access into the homes of customers like you and me. That works fine, to a point. These content providers more and more are offering online services especially video that require more bandwidth. They want to ensure that these services get to consumers without any delay or latency, which happens sometimes with a typical Internet connection. They want us to give them premium bandwidth not only more bandwidth, but some level of service guarantee to deliver their services to Internet customers. Just as people are willing to pay more for next-day mail delivery instead of regular delivery, we think content providers should help pay for this premium delivery if that's what they want or expect. Put another way, our customers should not be expected to pay more for DSL because a content provider demands premium bandwidth treatment. Companies seeking increased bandwidth should bear the cost.

Can you elaborate?
As I said, we agree with the FCC and we side with consumers. A truly healthy Internet is one where all parties who use it share in the cost of ensuring the health of the networks. We invest billions to build and maintain networks. Content providers count on that investment to reach their customers. Prioritization of data over private networks is an essential part of managing traffic. We simply want to allow content providers the option of choosing different service levels when moving bits over our network. From that point, it's up to them whether they want the service we're offering.

But no blocking or degrading?
Absolutely not. Any broadband provider who blocked access to the Internet would be inviting its customers to find another provider. AT&T has made clear, as a matter of company policy, that we will not block or degrade anyone's content.

Why do people sometimes equate net neutrality to highway construction?
It's a good analogy. Double-load tractor trailers pay extra fees to travel our highways because they require more room and they cause more wear and tear on the roads. Companies that push bandwidth-consuming applications such as video are the equivalent of big rigs on the highway. If Internet content providers had their way with the highway system, two things would happen: Everyone would have sub-par roads and everyone would pay significantly higher gas taxes. There is a better way, which would continue to provide consumers what they have today as well as offer them more options.

Everyone would pay more under the Internet content providers' plan?
Yes. By denying companies a choice of selecting different levels of speed and security, net neutrality proponents are really advocating a "one-size-fits-all" Internet. That would add costs for all Internet users, regardless of usage. Higher-bandwidth applications, like gaming and video, require billions in investment for fatter pipes. Absent the ability to manage traffic and offer differentiated pricing, low-volume users would pay more for basic activities such as e-mailing and Web surfing just to subsidize gamers and others. Some Internet companies want all consumers to pay for the high-bandwidth services, regardless of whether or not they use them. Instead, we believe the cost of providing high-bandwidth, high-quality services should be paid for by those who actually use them.

What are we proposing?
It all boils down to this. We don't want to restrict anyone's use of the Internet. We just believe that high-volume, bandwidth-intensive content providers should be asked to contribute proportionally toward the huge costs they create-rather than demand premium network services with the costs being passed on to DSL customers who may never use or need their applications.

And, more importantly, we think customers should continue to have control over their Internet experience, including their monthly bill, rather than have their services and costs dictated by the unreasonable demands of a few large content providers.

This is a company message. Sorry I can't link to it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
mainegreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-22-06 09:45 AM
Response to Original message
1. Gee sounds nice, but
where in the act does it define what a bandwidth hog is? Is bandwidth hogging a total bytes sent per day thing (in which case DU is a hog) or a total bytes per connection thing (in which case DU is not a hog)? Where is the monitoring of the implementation of packet proiritization?

Putting lipstick on a pig...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun Jan 21st 2018, 04:43 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC