FYI, this press release was issued yesterday by Free Press and
friends on IETF's Assumed Official Position on DiffServ. This is
what happens when the press is left to dangle on the end of a thread
of misleading comments.
RB
Internet Engineering Task Force Says
‘AT&T Is Misleading’ on Net Neutrality
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Date: September
8, 2010
Contact: Jenn Ettinger, 202-265-1490 x 35
WASHINGTON -- AT&T filed a letter last week with the Federal
Communications Commission claiming its plans for "paid
prioritization" arrangements were supported by the Internet
Engineering Task Force (IETF), the international body that
develops and promotes Internet standards. In its letter, which
attempted to conflate AT&T’s anti-consumer plans with accepted
business-class network management practices, the company stated
that paid prioritization "was fully contemplated by the IETF."
The IETF, however, disputes AT&T’s claims. "This
characterization of the IETF standard and the use of the term
'paid prioritization' by AT&T is misleading," IETF Chairman Russ
Housley told the National Journal. “IETF
prioritization technology is geared toward letting network users
indicate how they want network providers to handle their traffic,
and there is no implication in the IETF about payment based on any
prioritization."
"It's obvious that what AT&T calls 'paid prioritization' is
just another way of trying to get around the principle of the
free, open and non-discriminatory Internet," said Gigi B.
Sohn, president and co-founder of Public Knowledge.
"The Internet Engineering Task Force was right to call out
AT&T for this mischaracterization, and the FCC should reject
the idea entirely."
Today, several leading public interest groups called on AT&T
to publicly retract its recent letter to the FCC, and asked the
company to stop misleading the agency on this crucial issue at a
critical moment in the development of open Internet policy.
"AT&T should immediately retract its inaccurate and
misleading letter and apologize to the FCC for unnecessarily
muddying the very important debate over the future of the
Internet," said S. Derek Turner, research
director at Free Press. "Unfortunately, the fact that AT&T has
instead chosen to buy ads promoting its attempts to mislead
policymakers indicates that the company’s priorities do not
include participating in reality-based policy debates."
The groups urged AT&T to publicly reject the practice of paid
prioritization and affirm its support for FCC rules on Net
Neutrality like those AT&T operated under for two years
following its merger with Bell South. Under those conditions,
AT&T agreed that it would not "provide or sell to Internet
content, application, or service providers ... any service that
privileges, degrades or prioritizes any packet ... based on its
source, ownership or destination."
"The dispute with AT&T over the IETF DiffServ architecture
underscores how important it is for the FCC to adopt and enforce a
clear policy to prevent discrimination on the Internet," said Mark
Cooper, director of research at Consumer Federation of
America. "AT&T’s misinterpretation of the IETF DiffServ
architecture and its subsequent campaign of disinformation, like
last month’s Google-Verizon deal, show that the network operators
put their private interests above the public interest and are
willing to bend and break technical network management principles
at the expense of the open Internet."
Last week, the Open Technology Initiative at the New America
Foundation challenged AT&T, filing a letter of its own
distinguishing between harmful paid prioritization and legitimate
business practices.
"Our response letter to the FCC focused on AT&T's
disingenuous interpretation of IETF's work; however, we have other
serious concerns with AT&T's recent letter to the FCC," said Sascha
Meinrath, director of OTI. "We are still waiting for
the FCC to investigate whether AT&T engaged in any activity
that violated the conditions of its merger with Bell South."
Andrew Jay Schwartzman, senior vice president
and policy director of Media Access Project, added: "AT&T
should take this episode as an opportunity to elevate the debate
by making it clear that it has not previously engaged in paid
prioritization and by explaining why it thinks it needs to change
its practices going forward."
The groups emphasized the need for honest public debate and for
policymakers to recognize attempts to camouflage anti-consumer
proposals.
"The public is tired of companies like AT&T misleading them
in order to block public interest policies," said Beth
McConnell, executive director of the Media &
Democracy Coalition. 'It’s time for policymakers in Washington
D.C. to reject AT&T’s deceptive tactics, and instead to adopt
common sense rules to protect consumers online."
###
--
Richard Bennett
Speaking on My Own Behalf