Net neutrality push expected to resume in Congress

(continued from previous page)

Aside from outlawing any blocking or degrading of Internet content, Markey's bill would prohibit network operators from prioritizing certain content unless they offered similar priority to all content in that category. For instance, if a broadband company offers a dedicated pipe for its video offerings, it would have to make that venue available for all third-party video providers without a "surcharge."

With Democrats slated to become the majority in the House and, by a razor-thin margin, in the Senate when they reconvene in Washington this week, Net neutrality advocates have been hopeful that they will have more luck seeing their policy priorities translated into law.

"Although AT&T may make a voluntary business decision, it cannot dictate or bind government policy."

--Republican FCC Chairman Kevin Martin and Commissioner Deborah Taylor Tate, in a statement

Under a Republican Congress last year, calls for Net neutrality regulations faltered in both chambers. Republicans generally said they preferred to rely on market forces to solve any problems and were reluctant to pass what they considered to be preemptive laws.

AT&T's concessions, however, are no indication that the old battle lines--among large broadband companies on one hand and consumer groups and Internet content companies on the other--have evaporated. A Republican Senate aide said it was unclear whether more members on that side of the aisle would be swayed to support new regulations.

Tom Amontree, a senior vice president with the U.S. Telecom Association, which represents telephone companies of all sizes, said the lobbying group "has consistently maintained that government regulation of the Internet will hurt consumers and stifle the Internet as the free and dynamic force of innovation and economic growth that we count on today."

AT&T's concessions are limited to the BellSouth context and should not be viewed as any sort of policy reversal, said Jim Cicconi, AT&T's senior executive vice president for external and legislative affairs.

The compromise was necessary to win over a majority of commissioners on the merger question, and "we continue to believe that Net neutrality regulations are unwarranted and unwise," Cicconi said in a statement sent to CNET News.com on Tuesday.

Despite the appearance of a majority vote in favor of the merger, partisan battle lines over Net neutrality were also being solidified at the FCC level, leaving questions about how--or whether--the conditions would be enforced.

In a joint statement (click for PDF), Republican FCC Chairman Kevin Martin and Commissioner Deborah Taylor Tate again voiced their disdain for Net neutrality regulations, deeming that they are "simply not warranted by current market conditions and may deter facilities investment."

They went on to emphasize that the conditions may be enforceable in the AT&T and BellSouth situation, but would be in no way binding to future decisions by the FCC because only a minority of the commissioners--Democrats Michael Copps and Jonathan Adelstein--supported them.

"Thus, although AT&T may make a voluntary business decision, it cannot dictate or bind government policy," they wrote.

But Congress can--and should, urged Net neutrality advocates. The approach agreed to by AT&T in this context "is the right policy for all broadband Internet consumers," said Amazon.com's Paul Misener, a vice president of global public policy, "and we look forward to working with policymakers to ensure that it is applied throughout the United States."

[thenet411]

Don't trust 'em

Ya know, it's funny. Tied for the number one spot on my list of the most distrusted things in the world are the U.S. Government and the telecommunist companies. The huge company this merger will produce is EXACTLY why they were broken up in the 80s! And they're gonna let it happen again?

Ed Whitacre CANNOT be trusted! No matter what he says in public, he intends to (and will stop at nothing to achieve) gain complete and total control over the majority of U.S. consumer Internet connections. Once he has that, he will then use it to push his own agenda. Quietly at first, then like a bull in a china shop.

Ed Whitacre MUST BE REMOVED from his post before this merger is allowed to go through. Or, mark my words, AT&T will become (even more than now) the single biggest threat to a free Internet since Al Gore.

[Ken_Liou]

ATT/SBC is doing it already

if you have SBC/ATT DSL at home or business, you may not be
able to access SMTP server other than the one SBC/ATT provid.

try it, "telnet smtp.mail.yahoo.com 25"

if you can not get any respond, you are blocked by SBC/ATT

SBC/ATT will tell you they are protecting you, in fact they are
restricting you from using non-SBC/ATT sendmail server, spam
can still get to you and there is nothing to do with which
sendmail server you are using.

Talk to SBC support, see what kind of the story the can come up
with. I know it took me 2 hours to get them to remove my
restriction after all the denying.

[thenet411]

Actually...

I agree with this one. With so many idiot consumers out there being infected by botnet software, this is an excellent idea. This prevents compromised computers from becoming zombie computers to send SPAM.

And to have the port 25 block removed is a simple form you fill out and it takes about 24 hours to have the block removed.

In this ONE area, SBC/AT&T should be commended.

[scottk0640]

not related

A lot of ISPs block outgoing port 25 traffic for the spam-tastic
reasons already listed. It has nothing to do with prioritizing
streaming media packets over other packets, which is the issue
with net "neutrality."

[jabbotts]

isn't Yahoo's smtp on a non-standard port?

As I recall, from setting up Thunderbird last evening, Yahoo's smtp is on a non-standard port requiring username/password to send though I can't remember off hand if they also make use of any encription.

Also, Google uses a port other than 25 for smtp due to the use of username/password and encrypted connection on the encryption's standard port.

[disco-legend-zeke]

Ask your SMTP provider for an alternate port.

Blocking or restricting port 25 has become a standard in the Industry in the effort to stop spammers.

Independant and alternative mail providers all offer alternate ports for outgoing mail transport.

just use the ATT smtp server (which has problems with other spam filters) or, better, ask your email provider for an alternative port.

i have a lot of trouble with the lack of net neutrality here, but this specific case is more or less universal.

the proper solution would be an open port 25 plus active proscecution of spammers, but until our government does something to stop spammers, blocking port 25 IS an effective stop-gap.

[zanzzz]

Beware The Fine Print

It is my understanding that there is an exception to the limited time agreed upon net neutral behavior promised. A separate streaming video service is exempt. Apparently this service is over the company's network and somehow is not considered "internet".
This leads me to wonder what happens when AT&T decides in the future to engage in traffic shaping and bit prioritizing for streams only within it's net. At what point does this behavior become unacceptable? If they can restrict the monkey business to within just their vast network is that ok?

[amigabill]

what happens if they trash this pledge?

> AT&T said that for 30 months after the merger's
>closure, it would not provide or sell "any service
>that privileges, degrades or prioritizes any
>packet" transmitted over its pipes based on its
>"source, ownership or destination."

And what will be done if they fail to honor this promise? Will the merger be undone? I'd really like to know that something significant will be at stake to motivate such a huge company to abide by this if it shall be a condition for merger approval.

[stlwest]

January 2057 - The FCC Finally Protects Consumers Choice

What about naked DSL, shouldn't services be available without requiring bundling of services? Hey I want DSL and Vonage not DSL bundled with a phone line and another phone line from Vonage. Or why can't I just pick the channels I want from my cable company, If Pizza Hut can do it why not the cable and satellite companies.

Baby's crawl faster than the FCC, not to mention walk and run.

Net Neutrality means if you are a network provider selling me a circuit, hook me up and don't mess with my ****. The big network providers see people making all this money using the Internet in new and inovative ways. The big telco's who are moving all that traffic around are jealous and want a piece of the action(they've forgoten they are already getting paid for the circuits) and they aren't really interested in inovating or competing head to head. They want to use QOS to break the connection they sold you and want to charge extra for your VOIP phone to work, then if you want video well excuse me we need to talk, cha ching add on a You Tube surcharge.

Yeah, you'll pay if there is no protection from the multi-billion dollar network providers manipulating network traffic flows so they can protect thier own service offerings and jack you for more cash.

[disco-legend-zeke]

If it's NOT NEUTRAL, it's NOT INTERNET!

anyone selling a data network product that is not neutral is commiting fraud if they use the INTERNET trademark. (yes, Internet is a trademark)