I really really do not like that AmeriWreck and SBC ( Same Bad Company ) hide underneath a name like AT&T.
---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- From: "Chuck Profito" <[email protected]> Reply-To: WISPA General List <[email protected]> Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2010 10:40:45 -0700 > >AT&T: Net rules must allow 'paid prioritization' > >by Declan McCullagh > > > >AT&T said Tuesday that any Net neutrality plan restricting its ability to >engage in "paid prioritization" of network traffic would be harmful and >contrary to the fundamental principles of the Internet. > >Telecommunications providers need the ability to set different prices for >different forms of Internet service, AT&T said, adding that it already has >"hundreds" of customers who have paid extra for higher-priority services. > >"Our view is that if the Federal Communications Commission is going to be >making policy decisions on this front, it should base them on the facts, as >opposed to dogma," an AT&T representative told CNET on Tuesday. In a blog >post, AT&T vice president Hank Hultquist argued that the Internet >Engineering Task Force's specifications specifically permit paid >prioritization. > >The flap over paid prioritization started a few weeks ago when Free Press, a >pro-regulatory advocacy group, sent letters (No. 1 and No. 2) to the FCC >dubbing the concept "discriminatory" and claiming it will "only benefit the >few content giants that have deep enough pockets to pay for favorable >treatment." > >In a telephone interview on Tuesday, Free Press research director Derek >Turner said that allowing paid prioritization would undercut the entire >concept of Net neutrality, which had its previous legal foundation swept >away earlier this year when a federal appeals court shot down the FCC's >attempt to punish Comcast for temporarily throttling BitTorrent transfers. > >Since that ruling, liberal interest groups have been lobbying FCC chairman >Julius Genachowski for a new set of regulations, while a majority of members >of the U.S. Congress has opposed the idea. Google and Verizon responded by >announcing their own proposal, which includes a "presumption" that paid >prioritization on wired networks is illegal. > >"A ban on paid prioritization is the DNA of the open Internet," Turner said. >He called AT&T's arguments a "straw man," saying that: "What AT&T is >describing is a practice that we have no problem with, which is that an end >user can buy a T1 and set priority flags, and AT&T respects those priority >flags." > >Prioritization 'expected' >But the designers of the protocols that make up the modern Internet had >something a bit more ambitious in mind. In the late 1990s, the Internet >Engineering Task Force revised those standards to allow network operators to >assign up to 64 different traffic "classes," meaning priority levels. > >Free Press "wants to force consumers to be charged higher rates to pay for >the construction of more broadband infrastructure than would be needed if >networks could be better managed," says Berin Szoka, a senior fellow at the >Progress and Freedom Foundation, which has been critical of new broadband >regulations. > >A July 1999 IETF specification (RFC 2638) discusses paid prioritization by >saying: "It is expected that premium traffic would be allocated a small >percentage of the total network capacity, but that it would be priced much >higher." Another specification (RFC 2475) published half a year earlier says >that setting different priorities for packets will "accommodate >heterogeneous application requirements and user expectations" and "permit >differentiated pricing of Internet service." > >Today that concept of "differentiated services" is referred to as DiffServ. >It's part of quality-of-service technologies that companies like AT&T offer, >usually to business customers, that rely on DiffServ packet headers to group >different types of classes of service together. Real-time voice >communication may be ranked the highest, followed by financial transactions, >then e-mail, and finally bulk file-transfer protocols that aren't as >sensitive to brief slowdowns. > >It's true that DiffServ markings are typically used inside corporate >networks to support applications like VoIP. But a video-conferencing site >that has connectivity through AT&T could presumably use DiffServ to >prioritize its packets over, say, online shopping and BitTorrent >transfers--and keep that priority all the way to an AT&T home customer. > >Which is precisely the argument that AT&T is making. In a strongly-worded >letter (PDF) sent Monday to the FCC, AT&T says that the protocol >specification "in no way limits the use of DiffServ to packets marked by >'end users,' as opposed to content providers or network operators." > >"The (FCC) should view with healthy skepticism the opinions it receives on >technical Internet matters from an advocacy group with no demonstrable >expertise or operational experience in those matters," AT&T's letter says. >"Paid prioritization over Internet access is not, as Free Press maintains, >some lurking future menace that would pervert the intent of the IETF. To the >contrary, it was fully contemplated by the IETF." > >Free Press' Turner disagrees. "DiffServ was not designed to be a tool to >allow the network provider to drive application-level discrimination," he >says. He says that his organization will send a letter to the FCC by >Wednesday explaining its position. > > >Read more: >http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20015231-38.html?tag=nl.e703#ixzz0yIhOM6te > > > > >-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >WISPA Wants You! Join today! >http://signup.wispa.org/ >-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >WISPA Wireless List: [email protected] > >Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > >Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > ________________________________________________________________ Sent via the WebMail system at avolve.net -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WISPA Wireless List: [email protected] Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
