AT&T agrees to strong network-neutrality provisions
Once it became clear that FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell would not vote on the AT&T/BellSouth merger currently pending before the Commission, AT&T got serious about bringing the two Democratic commissioners on board. Yesterday the company filed a second set of merger conditions that offered new concessions on network neutrality and other matters in the hopes of breaking the current impasse.
AT&T had initially proposed a set of conditions back in October, but it soon became clear that these were not going to satisfy Commissioners Copps and Adelstein. The new deal was made grudgingly, with AT&T Senior Vice President Robert Quinn telling the Commission that even the first set of commitments was "wholly unnecessary" and that opponents were seeking to gain concessions "they were unable to obtain from Congress." Nevertheless, in a spirit of pragmatism, AT&T has agreed to the following concessions:
* Repatriating 3,000 jobs that are currently outsourced by BellSouth * Offering broadband to 100 percent of all residential living units in AT&T/BellSouth territory, with at least 85 percent of that delivered by wire * Offering new subscribers 768Kbps DSL connections for $10 a month for at least 30 months * Offering "naked DSL" (DSL without a voice plan) for at least 30 months in the BellSouth service area * Offering 768Kbps "naked DSL" in its entire service area for at least 30 months * Pledging to maintain "a neutral network and neutral routing in its wireline broadband Internet access service" * Giving up its rights to the 2.5GHz spectrum
Most consumer groups seemed thrilled about the new agreements, generally because of the strong network-neutrality language. AT&T has agreed to follow the FCC's principles regarding network neutrality and specifically pledges not to sell "any service that privileges, degrades or prioritizes any packet transmitted over AT&T/BellSouth's wireline broadband Internet access service based on its source, ownership or destination."
Professor Tim Wu, writing for Savetheinternet.com, praises the neutrality provisions, but he does note that they are not total. "The agreement does not prevent AT&T from treating different media carried on the Internet differently," he says, "so long as the carrier does not discriminate between who is providing the content. AT&T, under this agreement, may speed all the Internet video traffic on its network (to compete, for example, with cable). But it cannot pick and choose whose video traffic to speed up. In short, AT&T must treat like traffic alike—that is the essence of the agreement."
Whether the concessions will be enough to win approval for the deal remains to be seen, but things look good for the company. Neither of the two Democratic commissioners has called for the deal to be stopped; they've simply been looking the right mix of concessions from AT&T. Kevin Martin, who chairs the FCC, has repeatedly made clear that he wants the merger to move forward as quickly as possible, so a vote will probably come soon.
Additional pressure is coming from Congress, where John Dingell (D-MI) is the incoming chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce in the House. In a statement made on December 18, after McDowell announced that he would remain recused from the process, Dingell said, "With the closing of this ungainly sideshow, the Commission can get on with the proper performance of its duties. Now more than ever, the four remaining commissioners have a responsibility to analyze the transaction carefully, fairly and openly, and in a way that avoids imposing burdens that have nothing to do with the transaction. The continued recusal of Commissioner McDowell should not be viewed as an opportunity for individual commissioners to extract carte blanche from the merging parties."
That message was aimed at his fellow Democrats on the Commission and it echoed comments made by McDowell at the press conference where he announced his continued recusal. On the 18th, only hours before Dingell's statement, McDowell said, "I am hopeful that in the holiday spirit of making sacrifices, my four colleagues—and all the interested parties—will come back to the negotiating table in good faith to offer meaningful concessions. ... Sadly, I fear that my recusal from this matter has been used as a pawn by some to forgo meaningful and sincere negotiations. Now that I am removing that chess piece from the board, I hope that the twin pillars of sound negotiations are restored: good faith and sacrifice."
McDowell's stand was disappointing to Kevin Martin, who had sought a legal opinion from FCC counsel that would have allowed McDowell to participate despite his past ties to an industry trade group opposing the merger. McDowell expected that the legal document would give him "the legal equivalent of body armor," but instead, he said, "I was handed Swiss cheese."
His recusal means that the Commission will be forced to negotiate and compromise, instead of simply forcing the merger through on a 3-2 vote him. It's certainly a blow to Martin, but should strengthen the credibility of the Commission.
The merger could be voted on at any time.
:source: Source: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061229-8519.html
