
AT&T Decries Net Neutrality "Bait and Switch" - ALee
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/21/att-calls-fcc-net-neutrality-idea-bait-and-switch/
======
tc
This is actually beautifully ironic to those who understand what is going on
here.

AT&T has quietly backed and financed (some might say _"astroturfed"_ ) the
whole push for net neutrality... of _wired_ networks.

Why might they do that? Isn't AT&T an _evil_ carrier? It's pretty simple,
actually. AT&T has a massive network built for delivering phone calls. The
operation of this network does not depend on packet prioritization, so it is
not affected by net neutrality.

Who is affected though? Cable carriers rely on packet prioritization to
deliver voice calls with the approximate quality of AT&T's separate network.
Net neutrality doesn't affect AT&T much, but it harms their competitors'
business plans.

So it's easy to see why AT&T, who backed net neutrality when it was in the
interest of harming their upstart competitors, might feel that applying it to
wireless networks, where it affects them, is a "bait and switch." They
_baited_ a bunch of Congress critters to interfere in the ISP business, and
now the scope of that mandate is being _switched_ on them.

------
jhancock
"Wireless service doesn’t need regulation, AT&T argued, as it is a very
competitive market....Wireless networks “are facing incredible bandwidth
strains,” the company wrote, and “require continued private investment at very
high levels, and pro-active network management.”

This statement confused me. I would expect that in a very competitive market,
supply would be growing rapidly to keep up with demand.

~~~
tc
Don't even bother with this. It's just blather. The real issue is that AT&T
feels betrayed. They funded this whole initiative to hurt their competitors,
and now the gun might be pointed at them as well.

"All those expensive Congressional fund-raisers, and _this_ is the best we
get! There's no honor anymore..."

------
jhancock
"For the F.C.C. to now place such requirements on that spectrum so soon after
the auction creates the impression of a ‘bait and switch,’ and could raise
questions about the fairness and integrity of the auction process itself."

I would love to see an analysis of who AT&T paid to ensure its purchase of
wireless spectrum did not have a neutrality requirement. Its not a fair
auction if you pay off politicians and ensure you have insiders on the FCC to
get what you want.

I posted this the link the other day. Its about the FCC being bought by
AOL/TimeWarner. Would like to see similar stories on AT&T.

[http://books.google.com/books?id=GOvTxS-txFMC&pg=PA214&#...</a>

~~~
tc
They surely did _influence_ the process. But it is also true that any rational
business would have bid less for spectrum with a neutrality or open access
mandate. I don't have much sympathy for AT&T on this one, though, since
they've been trying to do the same thing to their competitors by pushing wired
net neutrality. Any new regulation upsets the calculations and forecasts that
businesses made to justify the risk of expending capital.

