dslreports logo
 story category
AT&T Forgets They Began The Network Neutrality Debate
Then calls people "conspiracy theorists" for pointing it out

Consumer group Free Press is apparently hitting some of AT&T's buttons this week, if this missive from AT&T lobbyist Hank Hultquist is any indication. Hultquist this week attacked the consumer group as a purveyor of "Da Vinci Code conspiracy theories" for a recent letter the group wrote to the FCC that points out how AT&T's long-standing dream of "paid prioritization" could be bad for consumers. In it, Free Press notes they don't oppose intelligent network management, just paid prioritization:

quote:
In a network where congestion is a somewhat rare occurrence, paid-priority treatment holds little value for third parties. Allowing ISPs to abuse their terminating access monopoly power by charging for paid prioritization directly produces the incentive to create scarcity. Policies that reward and encourage a steady state of scarcity are of course not a recipe for closing the digital divide through buildout and network expansion.
AT&T retorted by trying to conflate QOS network management (which, especially in more intelligent modern incarnations, few if any oppose) with paid prioritization, or an ISP charging content companies an extra surcharge if they wish to have their content reach AT&T customers more quickly. AT&T also accuses the group of being inconsistent conspiracy theorists -- simply for pointing out AT&T's long-documented ambitions on this front:
quote:
One sometimes hears...that the introduction of paid prioritization would enable ISPs to turn best effort Internet transmission into a "dirt road" and force virtually the entire Internet ecosystem to "pay extra" for prioritized transmission. Why would ISPs require such an elaborate scheme to raise rates if they have the market power attributed to them by the CoENN? Yet now Free Press seems to suggest that ISPs would restrict prioritization to only a few "deep-pocketed Internet giants." While I enjoy the Da Vinci Code conspiracy theories as much as the next blogger, I do expect at least some superficial consistency.
Why would an entrenched, incredibly powerful duopoly carrier impose an "elaborate scheme" to milk more money out of consumers and businesses that already pay for bandwidth? To make more money, of course. While the Free Press is certainly known for occasional hyperbole, suggesting that AT&T could abuse their market position using paid prioritization certainly isn't conspiracy material. It's not even controversial.

AT&T enjoys ignoring this fact: AT&T started the entire network neutrality debate in 2005 by proclaiming that they were going to charge content companies (who already pay for bandwidth) an extra, nonsensical toll to reach AT&T customers quickly. Thanks predominantly to lobbyist distortion, the debate has grown into a ridiculous, often-incoherent monster since then. However, it should be remembered that it was AT&T's vocalized desire to act as a bridge troll that began the network neutrality debate, and the original goal of network neutrality rules was to prevent AT&T from abusing its duopoly/monopoly power to extort passers by.

Update: The IETF also thinks AT&T's conclusions are misleading:
quote:
The current chair of the IETF, Russ Housley, disagrees with AT&T's assessment. "AT&T's characterization is misleading," Housley said. "IETF prioritization technology is geared toward letting network users indicate how they want network providers to handle their traffic, and there is no implication in the IETF about payment based on any prioritization."
view:
topics flat nest 
davidhoffman
Premium Member
join:2009-11-19
Warner Robins, GA

davidhoffman

Premium Member

Lying Lobbyists.

We here in Georgia were promised that if we came up with a statewide video franchise law that eliminated municipalities ability to negotiate franchises, that we would get competition, because the only thing standing in the way of speedy deployment of UVerse, was the need to negotiate with each municipality. The law AT&T wanted was put into place 1 January 2008 and we are still waiting for AT&T to show up and compete on a large scale. Luckily we have DishTV and DirecTV to keep some competitive pressure on Cox for video. Cox will eventually deploy DOCSIS 3.0 in Middle Georgia, but there is no great effort as there is no other company that can offer competitive speeds.

The point is that AT&T lied to us about deployment of UVerse, lied to us about wireless network coverage expansion, and lied to us about upgrading and expanding DSL. Why should we believe them about Network Neutrality?
tjb122982
join:2009-09-22
Terre Haute, IN

tjb122982

Member

Re: Lying Lobbyists.

said by davidhoffman:

We here in Georgia were promised that if we came up with a statewide video franchise law that eliminated municipalities ability to negotiate franchises, that we would get competition, because the only thing standing in the way of speedy deployment of UVerse, was the need to negotiate with each municipality. The law AT&T wanted was put into place 1 January 2008 and we are still waiting for AT&T to show up and compete on a large scale. Luckily we have DishTV and DirecTV to keep some competitive pressure on Cox for video. Cox will eventually deploy DOCSIS 3.0 in Middle Georgia, but there is no great effort as there is no other company that can offer competitive speeds.

The point is that AT&T lied to us about deployment of UVerse, lied to us about wireless network coverage expansion, and lied to us about upgrading and expanding DSL. Why should we believe them about Network Neutrality?
We shouldn't.

JasonOD
@comcast.net

JasonOD to davidhoffman

Anon

to davidhoffman
Perhaps you should take the state of the economy into account. It's hurting AT&T along with the customers that will/won't buy any new services they roll out.
chgo_man99
join:2010-01-01
Sunnyvale, CA

chgo_man99

Member

Re: Lying Lobbyists.

I agree with you. I had a hard time finding a part time job while I was finishing last year of my college.
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

Skippy25 to JasonOD

Member

to JasonOD
Really, how many billions did they make during this horrible economy? You can break it down by quarter if the math is easier for you.
ross7
join:2000-08-16

ross7 to JasonOD

Member

to JasonOD
said by JasonOD :

Perhaps you should take the state of the economy into account. It's hurting AT&T along with the customers that will/won't buy any new services they roll out.
Cry me a river, pawn.
hottboiinnc4
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH

hottboiinnc4

Member

Re: Lying Lobbyists.

i will. People don't like change. It's that simple. That is why landlines are still around in mass numbers. Nobody won't just rely on Cell or VoIP. Why change your cable company just because someone new in town rolls in. The extra cost in boxers is a major issue with familes and moving from no-cable TV to Direc, Dish or Telco. Who wants to pay $5+ per month on a box for their 3 year old to watch Nick in the AM???
ross7
join:2000-08-16

1 recommendation

ross7

Member

Re: Lying Lobbyists.

said by hottboiinnc4:

i will. People don't like change. It's that simple. That is why landlines are still around in mass numbers. Nobody won't just rely on Cell or VoIP. Why change your cable company just because someone new in town rolls in. The extra cost in boxers is a major issue with familes and moving from no-cable TV to Direc, Dish or Telco. Who wants to pay $5+ per month on a box for their 3 year old to watch Nick in the AM???
Please explain how your meandering boo-hoo is relevant to my post, or even the post I was responding to, or the subject of the thread; NETWORK NEUTRALITY, or lack thereof (for you that can't read or don't get it...).

doc69
Premium Member
join:2004-08-01

doc69 to JasonOD

Premium Member

to JasonOD
said by JasonOD :

Perhaps you should take the state of the economy into account. It's hurting AT&T along with the customers that will/won't buy any new services they roll out.
You really think at&t is hurting because of the economy or for any reason???? Wow no wonder the little guy gets the shaft all the time. To many blind people.............
hottboiinnc4
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH

hottboiinnc4 to davidhoffman

Member

to davidhoffman
You did receive your competition. also they never defined "large scale". Maybe ya'll down in Georgia should have said no. After all you believed the Ma Bell. You got what all the other states got. Many of us did see expansion of cable systems by overbuilders; T and V on the other hand? Yah uh huh. right.
davidhoffman
Premium Member
join:2009-11-19
Warner Robins, GA

davidhoffman

Premium Member

Re: Lying Lobbyists.

Part of the problem in Georgia was that many municipalities in our state were greedy in approving cable franchises. I believe the standard franchise fee was 5% of gross revenues from a particular city's subscribers. The cable companies expected the city to fund PEG(Public Access, Educational Access, and Governmental Access) operations out of that money. The cable companies would give up 3, 6 or 9 analog channels to support this. But many municipalities pocketed the franchise fees into the general fund and made the cable companies supply equipment, studio space, and training to operate the equipment for the entire PEG operation. The cable companies strongly resented this. AT&T wanted no part of the PEG requirements as they existed in many cities. They considered it doubling the franchise fee. They also did not like the fact that many of the same politicians who created this double taxation were also the ones who bashed the cable industry the most over the cost of cable service. Many of us had seen the pocketed franchise fees go to all manner of poorly thought out pet projects of politicians. So we agreed to take away the abusive capabilities of the existing cable franchise law in exchange for a vague promise that the free market had dozens of companies ready to jump in to build competitive cable TV networks. There were some small cable companies that took advantage of the new law to provide service. But the big competition has not occurred yet. We are in a quandary here. We are not allowed to easily build municipal fiber optic networks that could provide competition to the cable companies, yet we have been unable to get the main challenger of the law, AT&T, to build out UVerse to any significant portion of people.

marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO

marigolds

MVM

Re: Lying Lobbyists.

said by davidhoffman:

Part of the problem in Georgia was that many municipalities in our state were greedy in approving cable franchises. I believe the standard franchise fee was 5% of gross revenues from a particular city's subscribers. The cable companies expected the city to fund PEG(Public Access, Educational Access, and Governmental Access) operations out of that money. The cable companies would give up 3, 6 or 9 analog channels to support this. But many municipalities pocketed the franchise fees into the general fund and made the cable companies supply equipment, studio space, and training to operate the equipment for the entire PEG operation.
Greedy? That has been the standard across the country for decades. Decades.
gorehound
join:2009-06-19
Portland, ME

gorehound to davidhoffman

Member

to davidhoffman
ATT are nothing but a lying greedy corporation
tjb122982
join:2009-09-22
Terre Haute, IN

tjb122982

Member

Good Old Ma Bell

AT&T is trying to have best of both worlds. Old school protections from 70s and 80s and without any of the guarantees of open access and universal service. And if anyone who advocates for these or something else AT&T and Verizon doesn't like they are simply "conspiracy nuts" or "pinko commie liberals." God, I should go to law school and become a lobbyist and be paid big money to say stupid things.
hottboiinnc4
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH

hottboiinnc4

Member

Re: Good Old Ma Bell

you don't need to go to law school to do that. Someone on here did that. All over speaking against Comcast. just be open and vocal about what that company and agree with what they say. T watches these boards.

Murdoc49
Premium Member
join:2009-02-08
Manitowoc, WI

1 edit

Murdoc49

Premium Member

Elites are stupid.

Are these the supposed elites that are running this government?

Alakar
Facts do not cease to exist when ignored
join:2001-03-23
Milwaukee, WI

Alakar

Member

Re: Elites are stupid.

said by Murdoc49:

Are these the supposed elites that are running this government?
Umm, they are talking about an AT&T lobbyist, and a couple of consumer advocates. Where does the government come into this?

Murdoc49
Premium Member
join:2009-02-08
Manitowoc, WI

Murdoc49

Premium Member

Re: Elites are stupid.

att runs the government. The got immunity didnt they?
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

Skippy25

Member

AT&T Full of it again...

I love how they distort this.

Nowhere has anyone ever said they can't manage their network as needed. They distort the extent it is needed and they distort their intentions on how they are going to manage it.

First off, a network only needs to be truly managed as they want when there is major congestion. Which is not the case and their way would even encourage it to be that way as pointed out.

Second, creating a pay for priority model for anyone whether it be consumers or the companies benefits no one but them. If they do their jobs as the dumbpipes they are and pass a packet as they receive a packet as fast as they can, then all of this is a none issue. Them trying to make themselves relevant in content, when they have nothing to do with content is what this is all about. They realize all we need them for is DHCP and TCP/IP transport and beyond the connection and the speed of our connection they mean nothing to the consumer and that scares them.

Harddrive
Proud American and Infidel since 1968.
Premium Member
join:2000-09-20
Fort Worth, TX

Harddrive

Premium Member

Hank Hultquist




As Vice President-Federal Regulatory, Hank Hultquist represents AT&T at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) on a number of issues including broadband and Internet policy, video and media policy, intercarrier compensation, and universal service.

Jim Kirk
Premium Member
join:2005-12-09
49985

Jim Kirk

Premium Member

Re: Hank Hultquist

Looks like somebody punched him in the face.

Harddrive
Proud American and Infidel since 1968.
Premium Member
join:2000-09-20
Fort Worth, TX

Harddrive

Premium Member

Re: Hank Hultquist

nah, just the poop he's filled with is starting to leak out his left cheek.
Expand your moderator at work

Zulu3
join:2008-03-17
Port Saint Lucie, FL

Zulu3

Member

Smoke & Mirrors

All the ads on TV and internet are just that, Smoke & Mirrors. You talk to 10 people in various parts of the country and 9 of them can't get UVerse services or anything faster that 3 Meg services.
hottboiinnc4
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH

hottboiinnc4

Member

Re: Smoke & Mirrors

half of the public doesn't care about U-Verse as they're happy with their current provider. U-Verse also depends on your distance from their RT/VRAD. If your distance sucks so will your connect. That's why cable is a HUGE player over DSL.

nukscull
@rr.com

nukscull

Anon

QoS

What most people fail to realize is that QoS/CoS/priortization of traffic doesn't kick in on an ISP's backbone until the backbone is congested.

Right now, many of the large ISP's prioritize their own video and voice traffic so that it always has priority. So if a link of theirs happens to get congested, their most important traffic, which most of their subscribers use, will get there.

So if ISP's decide in the future that they are going to run their backbones and the links down to aggregation routers at full capacity, then packet prioritization will be something for us to worry about. Because it means general Internet traffic can come to a crawl at any time, or be that way most of the time.

I suppose ISP's can choose to have the poor service available. But it is a nightmare to run your links at full capacity for any amount of time. And QoS is only going to kick in when links are full. If there is any bandwidth available, there is no need for prioritization to do its work. But as soon as one packet has to be dropped because of congestion, QoS kicks in and drops or slows packets with the lowest priority.

To me, the bad thing that will come out of this is that large companies will be paying for prioritization of their traffic, and will basically be paying for nothing. Because no one in their right mind is going to run a backbone with links at full capacity. Not on purpose anyway.

tubbynet
reminds me of the danse russe
MVM
join:2008-01-16
Gilbert, AZ

tubbynet

MVM

Re: QoS

What most people fail to realize is that QoS/CoS/priortization of traffic doesn't kick in on an ISP's backbone until the backbone is congested.
not quite. packet classification always occurs (if it is done) on the packet as it ingresses to the providers network. if the isp is dropping the packet into given queues, that will be added to the appropriate field and then each successive device trusts the dscp markings within the transit network. traffic like real-time voice and video will always jump in front of bulk transfer.
But it is a nightmare to run your links at full capacity for any amount of time. And QoS is only going to kick in when links are full. If there is any bandwidth available, there is no need for prioritization to do its work. But as soon as one packet has to be dropped because of congestion, QoS kicks in and drops or slows packets with the lowest priority.
also not entirely true. the issue is that each interface on each linecard has a given buffer depth. with no qos applied, the full size of the buffer is allowed for queueing -- there is no priority. once qos is applied, the buffer is carved up into chunks, one for each of the different classes. if the bulk transfer queue is full, even though the link utilization is low, you'll still see drops on the bulk transfer. the issue with qos is that it must be done with either (a) intelligent network analysis to determine peak requirements for each queue or (b) a linecard with immense buffer depth so carving isn't an issue.

q.
brookeOB1
join:2010-08-09

1 edit

brookeOB1

Member

Madison River?

Madison River, the FCC's 2005 policy statement, and Brand X all predate Whitacre's remarks, and at the time, he was generally derided by people who understand how the internet works. Indeed, Whitacre had substantially backed off his statement within just a few months, which was good because it was really dumb. Lots of ISP executives were saying dumb things after Brand X and the Wireline Report and Order; executives of big lumbering companies aren't typically known for swift adaptation to change, to put it mildly (with a few exceptions).

It was activist groups (the ACLU in particular, early on) that turned the net neutrality issue into the monster it is today, because that's what activist groups do to be relevant: they create monsters to fight whether they're real or imagined, and in Ed Whitacre they found the monster that laid the golden egg.

Obviously subsequent response by ISPs--and the back and forth since then--has made the monster "ridiculous [and] often-incoherent," but to say that "AT&T started it" doesn't seem very accurate.