AT&T's New Year's Resolution: Net Neutrality ....

....And, its 2008 resolution.

And, its 2009 resolution -- until July, at least.

Why?

Because 2+2 = compromise.

Or, in other words, because of an ethical decision by a new FCC Republican commissioner to recuse himself from the agency's approval of the AT&T/BellSouth merger, the FCC was left with a partisan deadlock on the merger.

Today, a compromise was found.

The most noisy of the outcomes is that AT&T has apparently agreed to a 30-month pledge not to break net neutrality principles in order to get the approval before the end of the year (and the dawn of a new Congress). From Bloomberg:

In a bow to backers of ``network neutrality,'' AT&T said it would refrain from charging Web companies such as Google Inc. premium fees for faster subscriber access. Neutrality supporters have urged Congress not to let phone companies charge higher fees for faster service, which they liken to the creation of tolls on the Internet.

TechDirt speculates on the realpolitik of why AT&T bit on the compromise.

TechDirt also notes that the deal would include the offering of so-called "naked-DSL" for AT&T customers. This basically means that if you order DSL you don't have a land-line phone (and pay for it).

UPDATE: TechDirt and commentators debate the fine print and differences between IPTV "net neutrality" (which may not be covered here) and more traditional "broadband" net neutrality (which seemingly is.) Eric Schonfeld's
Next Net has a primer (albeit opinion laden) on IPTV and the net neutrality-relevant issues here.

Regardless, Public Knowledge is happy with the deal and tells you why.

And, given that the deal was compromise as the shot clock was running out, we're sure we'll be hearing plenty more competing arguments on what the details really mean.

Comments

[Bosco Brand]

I'm always hesitant when hearing about these kind of compromise agreements when it comes to issues as complex as net neutrality.

http://t1-lines.net