Paid prioritization as envisioned by Free Press and...
Paid prioritization as envisioned by Free Press and other net neutrality proponents doesn’t exist, said AT&T Senior Executive Vice President Jim Cicconi Friday in a blog post (http://bit.ly/1i8OitQ). The Internet “is totally safe from fast lanes and slow lanes,” and…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
no ISP has any plans to introduce the kind of paid prioritization Free Press warns against, he said. All ISPs have posted policies that prohibit the kinds of discriminatory practices raised by net neutrality proponents, he said. Reclassifying broadband as a Title II common-carrier service would do little good, Cicconi warned. “Some groups have suggested the best path to prevent paid prioritization is Title II,” he said. “But there’s one gigantic problem with this. The plain language of Title II provides no basis to prohibit paid prioritization. Quite the contrary, Title II actually allows and could protect any such practice.” Cicconi is “just plain wrong,” responded Free Press Policy Director Matt Wood. “AT&T has a consistent record of blocking applications that compete with its own voice and messaging services.” Wood cited AT&T’s blocking of Skype, Apple’s FaceTime app and Google Voice “right up until the FCC and Free Press started asking questions and drawing up Net Neutrality complaints about these tactics.” AT&T also demands extra from content providers, Wood said. “Look no further than the new practice of charging video-streaming services like Netflix an extra fee just to get their traffic on to last-mile broadband networks."