AT&T and Verizon say FCC Net neutrality principles work

Correction: This story misstated a quote from Tom Tauke, executive vice president of public affairs and policy for Verizon. Tauke said that it was in the best interest for the FCC to make a decision on the Comcast/BitTorrent case. He did not say that it was in the best interest for the FCC to make a decision against Comcast.

LAS VEGAS--Executives from AT&T and Verizon Communications said Tuesday that it's important for the Federal Communications Commission to take action in the Comcast debate over slowing down certain forms of peer-to-peer traffic in order to prove that legislation is not necessary when it comes to Net neutrality.

Jim Cicconi of AT&T (left) and Tom Tauke of Verizon (right) appeared on a panel together at the NxtComm trade show Tuesday.

(Credit: Marguerite Reardon/CNET Networks)

Comcast, the largest cable provider in the U.S., has been under fire for months after it was discovered the company had been slowing down peer-to-peer traffic on its network. The company claimed it had singled out peer-to-peer, file-sharing traffic, because it was eating up an inordinate amount of bandwidth, which caused degradation across the rest of its customers.

Consumer groups were incensed by the tactic, and the blogosphere filled with criticism. And as a result the FCC has been examining whether Comcast violated any of the agency's Net neutrality principles. A hearing was held earlier this year, and the FCC is expected to make a ruling on the matter sometime this summer.

Jim Cicconi, senior executive and vice president for legislative affairs for AT&T, and Tom Tauke, executive vice president of public affairs and policy for Verizon, told an audience at the NxtComm trade show here that it's important for the FCC to make a decision in this case to show that the agency's Net neutrality principles are enough to keep service providers honest.

"It's in the best interest of the industry for the FCC to make a judgment on the Comcast/BitTorrent case," Tauke said. "None of us want to be in a world where there is a sense that nobody is watching what is going on. We have the FCC and the Federal Trade Commission, which have authority to enforce some policies in this area. And if they do their jobs properly, they can make positive contributions on how the Internet develops."

Cicconi agreed, saying that the FCC has the opportunity to prove to Net neutrality supporters and Congress that it can enforce its own policies and keep the Internet open.

"The Comcast case has brought the debate over Net neutrality into specifics," Cicconi said. He added that this is important because up until now the discussion has centered on hypothetical problems. And creating new laws to deal with problems that haven't yet occurred could be disastrous for the industry.

[funchords]

This really is an issue where the TelCos were showing up Cable's weaknesses -- and then AT&T had to wander off and start talking about tiered bandwidth pricing. Internet for Dummies.

[Lerianis]

Yeah, that is exactly right. Who are AT&T and others to be getting on Comcast's case when they have brought the Texas-sized elephant into the room: tiered bandwidth pricing.
Really, the FCC needs to slap these companies down, and call them on the lie that 'big bandwidth users' are causing them to lose an inordinate amount of money. We aren't. Most ISP's get a rate of 10 dollars per 500GB's, so since I only use, max on a regular basis 200GB's.... they are still making a heck of a lot of money off me.

[fgoldstein]

Robert Mugabe is now complaining that American elections are rigged. Mexico is complaining that American police are corrupt. China is complaining that the American press isn't free. And the ILECs are complaining about network neutrality.

Remember, the whole problem began when they, the ILECs, got the FCC to waive their common carriage obligations. So instead of having open competition among ISPs, there is Exactly One ISP on DSL (the ILEC) and Exactly One on cable (the MSO). This is the duopoly they wanted, purely and specifically so that they, the ILECs, could gut neutrality and replace Internet access with "IP-enabled multimedia services" (IMS), a sort of Prodigy Classic on stereoids (now, with moving pictures!). And -- this was an AT&T statement -- take a share of the transaction value of ecommerce across their network. Wiretap everything (DPI) and charge for value. Just look at their wireless networks (email and web browsing ONLY) to see what they do when allowed. It is just taking them a while to scale up their IMS mess to cover wireline.

Comcast and other ISPs, especially the surviving independent ISPs (it ain't easy), have a serious problem with extremely heavy usage caused by high-quality video across the Internet. If there were a real (open) choice of ISPs, we'd recognize the market effect, price aligning with cost, and product differentiation to meet cost goals. But the well is poisoned. Rational activities are viewed with suspicion, and the real culprits are manipulating their sock puppet at the FCC.

And hey, what ever became of the "rule of law" in this country? The FCC is suppposed to make rules following the Administrative Procedures Act. It's not supposed to enforce non-rules based on Dictates of the Chairman. What is this, Mao's China? I know our democratic system is in tatters but this is ridiculous.

[amerhome]

It is very important for the FCC to take action if Comcast's actions are in violation of FCC's stated network neutrality principles. It's clear from the BitTorrent example that there will be cases when an ISP's business interest could cloud their judgement regarding whether a specific network management practice is contrary to the FCC network neutrality principles. The public scrutiny is a good thing as well in that it keeps FCC on its toes. That scrutiny is an important part of the reason that American consumers to continue to benefit from a neutral Internet today.
Congress has its own bandwidth challenges. Every Congress ends up leaving important policy issues unresolved because it runs out of time or resources, or has misplaced its priorities. In the telecom sector the most important Congressional priority should be to find a workable solution to providing universal broadband access. Close behind that is the need for health IT legislation that could reduce healthcare costs by billions of dollars. The strongest arguement against network neutrality legislation now is Congressional priorities - Congress should be focusing its time on those issues, as long as the FCC continues to enforce its network neutrality principles.

[zeroplane]

Comcast!
It's Craptastic!