Your Friendly Internet traffic cops Time Warner Cable and Comcast paid for research that suggests those Internet speed slowdowns are your fault (or at least not theirs).

A study from MIT suggests that broadband speed test results that show “real world” broadband speeds far below what your provider promises are actually better than you think, and if they’re not — it’s not your provider’s fault.  The paper, Understanding Broadband Speed Measurements, finds slow Internet speeds are often your problem, because you run too many applications on your computer, visit inaccurate speed measurement sites, use a wireless router, or have run into an Internet traffic jam outside of the control of your ISP.

The research comes courtesy of MIT’s Internet Traffic Analysis Study (MITAS) project, financially backed by some of North America’s largest cable and phone companies — Clearwire, Comcast, Liberty Global (Dr. John Malone, CEO), and Time Warner Cable in the United States, Rogers Communications and Telus in Canada.  Those providers also deliver much of the broadband speed data MITAS relies on as part of its research.  Additional assistance came from MIT’s Communications Futures Program which counts among its members Cisco, an equipment manufacturer and promoter of the “zettabyte” theory of broadband traffic overload and cable giant Comcast.

The study was commissioned to consider whether broadband speed is a suitable metric to determine whether an ISP provides good or bad service to its customers and if speed testing websites accurately depict actual broadband speeds.  Because Congress and the Federal Communications Commission have set minimum speed goals and have expressed concerns about providers actually delivering the speeds they promise, the issue of broadband speed is among the top priorities of the FCC’s National Broadband Plan.

“If you are doing measurements, and you want to look at data to support whatever your policy position is, these are the things that you need to be careful of,” Steve Bauer, technical lead on the MIT Analysis Study (MITAS) told TG Daily. “For me, the point of the paper is to improve the understanding of the data that’s informing those processes.”

Bauer’s 39 page study indicts nearly everyone except service providers for underwhelming broadband speeds:

While a principal motivation for many in looking at speed measurements is to assess whether a broadband access ISP is meeting its commitment to provide an advertised data service (e.g. “up to 20 megabits per second”), we conclude that most of the popular speed data sources fail to provide sufficiently accurate data for this purpose. In many cases, the reason a user measures a data rate below the advertised rate is due to bottlenecks on the user-side, at the destination server, or elsewhere in the network (beyond the access ISP’s control). A particularly common non-ISP bottleneck is the receive window (rwnd) advertised by the user’s transport protocol (TCP).

In the NDT dataset we examine later in this paper, 38% of the tests never made use of all the available network capacity.

Other non-ISP bottlenecks also exist that constrain the data rate well below the rate supported by broadband access connections. Local bottlenecks often arise in home wireless networks. The maximum rate of an 802.11b WiFi router (still a very common wireless router) is 11mbps. If wireless signal quality is an issue, the 802.11b router will drop back to 5.5mbps, 2mbps, and then 1 mbps. Newer wireless routers (e.g. 802.11g/n) have higher maximum speeds (e.g. 54 mbps) but will similarly adapt the link speed to improve the signal quality.

End-users also can self-congest when other applications or family members share the broadband connection. Their measured speed will be diminished as the number of competing flows increase.

The study also criticizes the FCC for relying on raw speed data that does not take into account the level of service being chosen by a broadband customer, claiming many service providers actually deliver higher speed service than their “lite” plans advertise.

In short, it’s everyone else’s fault (including yours) for those Internet speed slowdowns.

Ultimately, the report’s conclusion can be summed up in three words: change the subject.  It’s not slow broadband speeds that are the problem — it’s the lack of understanding about what you can accomplish with the speeds you do get from your ISP:

In the next few years, as the average speed of broadband increases, and the markets become more sophisticated, we expect that attention may shift towards a more nuanced characterization of what matters for evaluating the quality of broadband services. Issues such as availability (reliability) and latencies to popular content and services may become more important in how services are advertised and measured. We welcome such a more nuanced view and believe it is important even in so far as one’s principal focus is on broadband speeds.

One thing the paper does effectively deliver at top speed are industry talking points, particularly the one that says less regulation is better (underlining ours):

Our hope is that progress may be made via a market-mediated process that engages users, academics, the technical standards community, ISPs, and policymakers in an open debate; one that will not require strong regulatory mandates. Market efficiency and competition will be best served if there is more and better understood data available on broadband speeds and other performance metrics of merit (e.g., pricing, availability, and other technical characteristics).

These kinds of research reports are often tainted by the industry money that pays for them.  Researchers and universities routinely deliver industry-pleasing, sober-sounding studies in return for considerable financial contributions, grants, and other forms of underwriting.  This report lacks full disclosure about who is helping to pay for it — North America’s largest cable operators, who also deliver much of the data MITAS relies on for their research.

Ask yourself how much longer these companies would be writing checks to MIT had they delivered a report implicating them in false advertising of speeds they do not deliver or for relying on inadequate upstream providers to handle their Internet traffic?  The report pulls any and all punches delivered to the companies who finance it — a clear sign of bought-and-paid-for research in action.

Phillip "The only New Deal my cable company brought to the table was a $150 monthly broadband bill for exactly the same level of service I had when paying $50" Dampier

Joe, a regular Stop the Cap! reader noticed the National Review this morning published another one of their “in the pocket of big telecom” editorials proclaiming Net Neutrality is “anti-consumer.”  Right into the first paragraph, it was clear the editors either fundamentally misunderstand the reality of today’s broadband industry or honestly didn’t care as long as it suited their business-friendly agenda.

Readers, you need not go along with the charade.  While the publishers of National Review can probably afford to buy their way around anything the phone and cable industry can dream up, you probably cannot.  What those opposed to Net Neutrality frame as “freedom from government intrusion” is in reality an attempt to keep your broadband provider from screwing around with your connection in hopes of charging you more for the same service you used to have.

Turn on your TV these days and within minutes you are likely to see several commercials from your local cable, satellite, or telecommunications company trying to convince you that their cable, DSL, or mobile broadband services are superior to those of their competitors. That’s because the market for broadband service is robustly competitive: If service providers didn’t advertise, they would lose business.

Actually, most of the advertising I see on my television comes from free ad inserts Time Warner Cable hands themselves during ad breaks on national cable channels.  My local phone company, Frontier Communications, hasn’t advertised on television for quite awhile.  The mobile broadband advertising I see fights over coverage and who has the coolest new device.  They aren’t advertising on price because they almost all charge exactly the same $60 for 5 GB of usage per month.

None of this represents “robust competition” when one of the players on the wired side is absent from the airwaves and the wireless folks have convenient cartel-like pricing for wireless broadband.

They would also lose business if they did something that made their customers unhappy, such as slowing or blocking the delivery of popular content over the Internet. Or they might gain customers if they created a model that, for a fee, guaranteed uninterrupted high-speed access to certain services, such as telemedicine, video conferencing, or some other use of the Internet we have yet to imagine. This competition directs broadband toward its most efficient uses. It is pro-consumer in that it allows for the proliferation of choices and pressures companies to offer a variety of pricing options.

Of course, the editors who wrote this did not have to fight back a 300 percent rate increase with an Internet Overcharging scheme that would have limited broadband access in at least five cities to start.  Let’s test their theory by asking a few questions.  First, did anyone ask for this kind of pricing to begin with?  Answer: No.  Second, did the plan make customers unhappy?  Answer: Emphatically yes.  Third, upon hearing from customers that they did not want this kind of pricing, did they discard the plan?  Answer: Not on your life.  Fourth, did it take two members of Congress to drive the company to finally pull back their plan?  Answer: You bet.

Now ask the same types of questions about slowing down your web connection to make room for the neighbor up the street willing to pay more to get more while you enjoy less for the same price you’ve always paid.

Lesson learned: when you effectively have a duopoly or monopoly in your market, you don’t have to listen to customers — they have to listen to you.  Indeed, even where competition exists, there is every indication the competitors would themselves increase prices or limit service to rake in additional revenue.  That happens routinely even in more competitive industries like the airlines — something you realize when you try and check bags and are asked for a credit card.  In Canadian broadband, foreshadowing a non-Net Neutral USA, when one player limits usage and throttles connections, the competitor more often than not joins in.

The other fallacy raised in this useless editorial is that Net Neutrality somehow bars companies from offering all of those wonderful innovative Internet applications.  It’s a common talking point straight out of the industry’s playbook.  Nothing precludes the broadband industry from expanding and improving their networks to offer all of these services.  Under Net Neutrality, they simply wouldn’t be allowed to do it on the backs of their other Internet customers, whose connections are automatically impeded to make room for that “innovation.”  The saddest part is that the only innovation at work here is price-gouging customers instead of upgrading networks.

It would be a huge mistake to impose by fiat a single business model on the carrier side of the Internet.

Tell that to AT&T and Verizon who have exactly the same pricing in their business model for mobile broadband service.  Is it a huge mistake for them?

Specifically, they want the government to prohibit broadband providers (such as Comcast) from discriminating against content providers (such as Google) by, for instance, charging them different rates for different levels of network service. They argue that, in the absence of such regulation, broadband providers can act as self-appointed censors, slowing down or blocking content they don’t like. Keep in mind that in no instance has this actually happened. So far, broadband providers have acted only to slow down noisome bandwidth hogs in order to manage traffic and ensure a high quality of service for the majority of their customers. Net-neutrality proponents counter that other customers — those unhappy about the slowdowns — lack meaningful options; that is, that the market for broadband service is not sufficiently competitive.

It is -shocking- the government would want to make sure broadband providers don’t block or discriminate against other people’s content.  We can’t have that!

The National Review needs to consider studying up on history.  The cable industry, for example, is notorious for blocking competitor access to its content.  To this day, the industry is fighting to keep the cable networks they own off competitors’ lineups.  The same company that provides your broadband service wants to make sure their telephone competitor cannot show a regional sports channel they own.  At least one broadband provider in the United States tried to block competing Voice Over IP phone companies from being used on their broadband service.  The same “blocking” mentality popped up in Canada where a broadband provider purposely blocked a website critical of that company.  Want access to cable programming online but don’t have a cable-TV package?  Good luck.  TV Everywhere projects are specifically designed to block non-cable TV customers from accessing that programming online.

National Review‘s afterthought admission that providers like Comcast were diddling with customers’ Internet speeds is waved away as somehow the fault of bandwidth piggies, another common meme in the talking points packet provided by the broadband industry.  Never mind the company had effectively spied on customers to determine what they were doing with their connections, that they first denied reports they were throttling, effectively throttled everyone — piggies or not — and then quickly stopped when the FCC protested.  If Comcast wasn’t doing anything wrong, why not inform customers first?  After all, the “majority of customers” would want throttling to preserve their “high quality of service,” right?

Of course they don’t, and when customers found out the company charging them good money to provide a service was also trying to systematically reduce its value with speed throttles, they howled in protest.  Who knows what online application would fall next to the throttle?

This would effectively mean applying to broadband providers the rules designed for landline telephone companies in the 1930s. We know Obama wants to emulate FDR, but this is getting ridiculous.

Oh now see how they tried to be funny with the slap against Obama and FDR?  The National Review would have been the magazine defending the railroad robber barons and utility trusts — unregulated monopolies — back during FDR’s day.  They’d be just as wrong then as they are now.  The only New Deal my cable company brought to the table was a $150 monthly broadband bill for exactly the same level of service I had when paying $50.

The current regulatory framework for broadband was constructed by Michael Powell’s Republican-majority FCC, classifying broadband as an “information service.”  It was bureaucratic incompetence because it relied on vaporware authority that a court found, to nobody’s surprise, didn’t exist.  The court does recognize the FCC’s authority to regulate “telecommunications services,” so by simply reclassifying broadband as such, the basic question of authority is solved.  The National Review pretends this will automatically mean 1930s-like regulations as applied to copper wire-phone companies, but that’s not true.  The National Review simply doesn’t want the FCC to have any authority in the first place.

But the FCC’s authority to reclassify broadband to suit its desires is also open to legal challenge. As a result, we are sure to hear louder calls for Congress to regulate the Internet or to grant the FCC the explicit authority to do so. These calls should be ignored. The Internet has thrived in the absence of homogenizing federal regulations, and this organic development should be allowed to continue so long as competition can act as a check on anti-consumer practices.

The calls to enshrine Net Neutrality, stop Internet Overcharging, and force open broadband markets and expand service all do not come in a vacuum.  They are ideas born from past provider abuses that have demanded consumer protections in response.  Who would have dreamed up Net Neutrality if AT&T’s Ed Whitacre didn’t insist Internet traffic could not use his pipes for free.  What about when the industry started toying with developing premium tiers of service that relied on slowing down the connections of their other paying customers.  Why worry about forcing markets open to additional competition?  Oh yeah, because of statements like those from Landel Hobbs (Time Warner Cable COO) who told investors Time Warner Cable could use its market position in broadband to jack up prices whenever they chose.  And they did.

The National Review‘s “hands off” attitude is the same one they’ve had towards banks, and now every American is paying for that mistake.  Let’s not repeat it.

Besides, as it stands these companies compete vigorously against one another in a way that is beneficial to consumers. If one of them makes an unpopular business decision, its customers can go elsewhere. If, however, an unelected FCC chairman dictates uniformity in the services these companies provide, then there is nowhere Americans can turn for innovations the government may have strangled in the cradle.

Where exactly do consumers in rural areas go for alternative broadband when their monopoly phone company provider limits their service or charges them confiscatory pricing?  Where do residents go when both providers limit service?

Consumers have far more power to deal with the “unelected FCC Chairman” than dealing with intransigent phone and cable companies.  Elections every few years have consequences.  There are no elections for Comcast, Verizon, Cox or AT&T.  They’re effectively Providers-for-Life in the communities they serve.

The National Review has little to fear from a broadband dark ages where innovation disappears.  Somehow, an industry that rakes in billions in revenue every year will manage to get by living under basic guidelines that require them to earn their money fairly and spend some of those profits to keep up with very profitable demand.  They’ll sue anyway, of course.  But that could buy us enough time to spur additional competitive choices in a duopolistic market for broadband, helping put to work those free market principles of fierce competition the National Review believes in.

[Article Correction 4/15/2010: The original piece laid blame for the classification of broadband as an “information service” on former FCC Chairman Kevin Martin.  In fact, the classification was made by former FCC Chairman Michael Powell, who served during the first term of the Bush Administration.  We regret the error.]

Flag of New Zealand

Despite broadband provider propaganda designed to convince Americans restrictions on broadband usage were “commonplace” and well tolerated overseas, a group of New Zealand and Australian broadband entrepreneurs propose to spend just under $900NZ million to build new fiber capacity to help eliminate them once and for all.

A team of businessmen from the South Pacific today announced they are part of “an early stage” venture to construct a brand new underseas fiber optic cable to connect Australia and New Zealand with the United States, providing five times the capacity of existing service provided by the Southern Cross system.

The new group, Pacific Fibre, went public today and is talking with potential partners about the plan to construct a 13,000 kilometer cable by 2013.

Mark Rushworth, former Vodafone chief marketing officer, told TV New Zealand a full 90 percent of New Zealand Internet traffic is bound for the United States.

“It is using the most direct route. It is one hop from New Zealand to the US, which from a technical perspective is very important because it means it is a lower latency cable, that is, it is faster than other cables,” he said.

Flag of Australia

The primary impetus for the project was the common practice in New Zealand and Australia to limit customers’ usage of broadband service with Internet Overcharging schemes like usage-based billing or restrictive data caps which can throttle speeds just above dial-up for customers for weeks, if they exceed their usage allowance.

Rushworth

Private providers have lived happily on the revenue earned from such schemes and have done little to relax usage limits on their customers, so Pacific Fibre decided to undertake a game-changing new fiber cable themselves to drive prices down and eliminate the caps.

“We desperately need a cable that is not purely based on profit maximization, but on delivering unconstrained international bandwidth to everybody, and so we’ve decided to see whether we can do it ourselves,” said partner Sam Morgan.

“We hope to bring in extra capacity at a low price, which our carriers and ISP customers can end up passing on to their customers,” Rushworth said.

“We all know that in any market as soon as you introduce competition prices tend to drop and volume goes up,” he told TVNZ.

The current proposed cable configuration would have two fiber pairs with 64 wavelengths (lambdas) each at 40 gigabits per second per lambda. The maximum lit capacity initially would be 5.12 terabits per second, but would be upgradeable to over 12 terabits per second as emerging technology became a reality.

Phillip "My Essay Would Never Get Accepted" Dampier

Wonder where Time Warner Cable is spending this year’s rate increase?  Look no further than Time Warner Cable’s all-new Research Program on Digital Communications.

For a 25-35 page essay on the topics that interest Time Warner Cable’s lobbying and Re-education campaigns, the cable operator will fork over a whopping $20,000 “stipend.”

Why?  They get to use an ostensibly “independent” researcher from a major university or non-profit group to promote their agenda with the veneer of credibility.  It’s not Time Warner Cable that suggests Internet Overcharging schemes are warranted — it’s this researcher guy from a respected university who said so.  Net Neutrality should be opposed not because we have a vested interest in doing so, but because this non-profit group catering to a minority or disadvantaged group says it will harm their members.

Copies of the “dollar-a-holler” essays get spread around Washington to influence public policymakers and other legislative movers and shakers, and inevitably become talking points in the public policy debate.  Long forgotten is who paid for them.

What kinds of questions does Time Warner Cable want answers to?

• How are broadband operators coping with the explosive growth in Internet traffic? Will proposed limits on network management practices impede innovation and threaten to undermine consumers’ enjoyment of the Internet?
• How can policymakers harmonize the objectives of preventing anticompetitive tactics and preserving flexibility to engage in beneficial forms of network management?
• Regarding these issues, describe a vision for the architecture of cable broadband networks that promotes and advances innovation for the future of digital communications.
• How might Internet regulations have an impact on underserved or disadvantaged populations?

See below for my exclusive tips and strategies to help would-be applicants succeed in getting their essay proposals approved!

Some companies have paid stipends to researchers to consider market trends, new product possibilities, and be on top of the next biggest thing.  This isn’t that.

This “research program” is being overseen by Fernando R. Laguarda, Vice President, External Affairs and Policy Counselor at Time Warner Cable.  Laguarda joined Time Warner Cable last April from Wiltshire & Grannis LLP, a boutique law firm involved in telecommunications policy strategies as part of its practice.  The firm describes, among its strengths, a “first-rate understanding of the law and policy with a keen understanding of the political and public relations forces that shape public policy battles to help fashion innovative, winning strategies.”

Time Warner Cable admits he’s there to help Time Warner re-educate lawmakers and the public about Time Warner Cable’s agenda.  From their press release announcing his hiring (underlined emphasis ours):

Laguarda will play a significant role in helping the company develop and advance its policy positions, and will assume primary responsibility for working with third party policy influencers, including think tanks, academics, public interest and inter-governmental groups, and diversity organizations.

“Fernando is an accomplished attorney who comes to Time Warner Cable with a unique mix of experiences and he will bring a fresh perspective to the many policy issues we will be addressing,” said Steven Teplitz, Senior Vice President, Government Relations, adding “he knows our business extremely well and will play an essential role in helping to advance Time Warner Cable’s advocacy agenda.”

Time Warner Cable is taking a page from Verizon and AT&T, who back research “think tanks” and have contributed heavily to organizations that suddenly declare a burning interest in their corporate policy agendas.  Take a look at Broadband for America’s member roster for a review of how that game is played.

Time Warner Cable customers are probably wondering why they are paying for this.  After all, $800 a page for essays that “will provide new information, insights, and practical advice” is mighty pricey.

Ordinary consumers are not invited to apply.  Had we, my essay proposal would have been, “Time Warner Cable Should Stop Wasting Customers’ Money on Bought-And-Paid-For Essays and Instead Use the Money to Upgrade Their Network.”  I was even planning on including some nice graphs and charts and stuff.

I would remind the nation’s second largest cable operator it earns billions from selling broadband.  Instead of blowing $20k-an-essay down a Washington public policy rathole, it could instead spend it on solving their burning network management issues with simple, cost-effective upgrades that deliver better service to customers.

Since I don’t qualify — I’m just a Time Warner Cable customer, what do I know, I’ll be a giver and not a taker and share free advice with would-be applicants.

1. Since Time Warner Cable doesn’t want a breakdown of your expenses or need to know what you are going to do with the $20k, you are going to spend most of your time and effort first learning what policy positions the cable company wants you to parrot in order to improve your chances of being a big winner.  Remember, Time Warner isn’t going to give you the whole 20k upfront.  According to their FAQ, one half of the award ($10,000) will be issued at the start of the project.  The second installment ($10,000) will be made only after your advocacy essay is delivered.  There’s a built-in incentive to tow the line.

2. You can’t write on just any topic.  You have to write about one of the company’s pre-selected topics, which is why I’m out of the running for this already.  If you’ve been paying attention to the policy debates about Internet Overcharging, Net Neutrality, and Network Management, you are already half-way there!  You know what side of the issue the cable company is on, so don’t blow your chances by saying things like “a free and open Internet should never discriminate against the traffic carried on it,” or “at a time when the broadband industry earns billions in revenue and recently increased rates for customers again, the idea of implementing usage limits or usage based billing would make Tony Soprano awe at its audaciousness.”

Polly wants a stipend

(Statements in green keep you in the running.  Statements in red will likely get your proposal introduced to the circular file.)

• Reputable equipment manufacturers predict Internet growth so great, it threatens a vast “exaflood” which could bring the Internet to its knees.  Without wise network management and traffic control measures, just like those used on any big roadway, a cataclysmic global traffic jam is inevitable.
• Network Neutrality should be a given for any provider because no company wants to make money by slowing down someone’s content.  That would be like extortion — pay us or we put the brakes on you.
• Network management techniques guarantee your call from grandma will be crystal-clear, your movie download from your cable-partnered movie service will always play worry-free, and by organizing online traffic, Internet chaos is reduced.
• There is nothing wrong with cable companies colluding with one another to preserve the industry’s flexibility to manage its own traffic, even if it means putting some questionable, independently-owned traffic at the back of the line.  Nobody wanted to view that anyway.
  
• Today’s cable broadband provider is investing billions of dollars to improve network capacity and deliver customers an unparalleled online experience.  The cable industry has pioneered innovation in cable network programming they own, operate and distribute to assure quality and excellence.  Now, by taking that same formula for success to online content, and cutting out unnecessary middlemen, the industry can do for broadband what it created for cable television.  Now that’s a win-win for everyone!
• Internet regulations have unintended consequences.  It means providers have to funnel large contributions to interest groups, or place a company employee on a group’s advisory board, so that the industry can rest assured that groups with an interest in maintaining valued contributions will advocate anything we ask, starting with “these regulations are bad for our groups and our members.”
• Unnecessary Internet regulations will create widespread depression and anxiety for investors.  That means money to expand broadband availability in underserved or unserved communities will dry up faster than the Mojave Desert.
• If the cable industry doesn’t get its way on this, it will punish consumers like the credit card industry did after “credit card reform.”  Word to the wise.

Redefining their "new position" to basically mean their "old position"

AT&T’s all-new position on Net Neutrality suspiciously sounds like its old position on Net Neutrality.

In a three-page letter addressed to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, James W. Cicconi, AT&T’s senior vice president for external and legislative affairs wrote in glowing terms about the Obama Administration’s efforts to expand broadband service and preserving the “open Internet.”  Those goals are shared by AT&T, according to Cicconi.  But are they?

AT&T has spent millions fighting Net Neutrality policies, calling them unnecessary and harmful to broadband innovation and investment.  Ed Whitacre, Jr., AT&T’s former chairman and CEO infamously kicked off a contentious debate when he declared content producers shouldn’t be allowed to use AT&T’s “pipes for free.”

Little has changed.

Yesterday’s letter to Genachowski brings nothing new to the table from AT&T.  In short, they still feel broad-based Net Neutrality regulations will be harmful to investment.  AT&T wants the FCC’s definition of Net Neutrality to be “flexible enough to accommodate the types of voluntary business agreements that have been permitted for 75 years.”  Flexible, in this instance, means gutting the clear, unambiguous prohibition against fiddling with Internet traffic and inserting loopholes that gut the policy’s effectiveness.  AT&T’s “voluntary agreements” never include consumers.

AT&T wants to provide “value-added” services to content producers who agree to pay more to obtain them.  That typically means additional speed or a guarantee of prioritized service.  Unfortunately, on a finite broadband network, those getting preferential treatment can reduce the quality of service for those who don’t pay.  By trying to refocus the FCC’s attention on obsessing over subjective interpretations of “unreasonable and anti-competitive” content discrimination, AT&T gets a free pass to configure a broadband protection racket and rake in money from content producers afraid to be stuck in the slow lane.

Cicconi

AT&T also continues to complain that such regulations would prevent the company from offering consumers “value-added” broadband services.  As long as those services do not discriminate, providers can freely provide network enhancements like faster speed tiers, “Powerboost” technology which temporarily speeds up connections, and even network management which keeps viruses, malware, and other junk traffic away from subscribers.

Ben Scott at Free Press, a consumer advocacy group, read between AT&T’s latest lines and saw a naked effort to gut Net Neutrality before being enacted:

“After leading a rabid anti-net neutrality lobbying campaign for years, AT&T now submits a letter to the Federal Communications Commission purporting to offer common ground,” Scott said. “What they are proposing would allow them to violate the core principle of Net Neutrality — letting them control the Internet by picking winners and losers in a pay-for-play scheme. That would destroy the free and open Internet, and the FCC should reject this false compromise out of hand.”

“Make no mistake, AT&T opposes Net Neutrality. Their proposed solution is a bait and switch. As bait, they ask to return to a standard of nondiscrimination that was long applied to the telephone network. But they fail to mention that this standard was part of a system of pro-competitive common carriage rules that they have railed against applying to broadband networks for years. They haven’t changed their mind about common carriage. They are simply cherry-picking one piece of the old rules and calling it a compromise. The entire Net Neutrality debate is about the creation of a new system of nondiscrimination that fits broadband networks, not telephone networks –a debate the telephone companies forced by stripping away consumer protection rules from broadband under the Bush administration,” Scott added.

Public Knowledge also called out AT&T in a statement from Gigi Sohn.

AT&T has tried to draw what is an imaginary line among types of discrimination. The company advised the FCC that while ‘unreasonable’ discrimination can be banned, any discrimination caused by ‘voluntary commercial agreements’ is just fine because the parties involved agreed to it. That is nonsense.

As we have said consistently, the Internet has functioned as well as it has because control of the crucial roles at each end of the network. Side deals made by a carrier like AT&T and a content provider or other company take that control out of the hands of the consumer.

Similarly, it is unfortunate that AT&T has resorted to the old tactic of threatening not to invest in its network if the company does not get what it wants in a rulemaking. The growth of the Internet will be driven by consumer demand, not by gimmicks. If the company is truly interested in consumers, it will allow consumers to remain in control.