AT&T's agreement comes as part of a merger deal with Bell
South Communications (SBC). The agreement was a condition of the
Federal Communications Commission's approval of the $86 billion
deal and reverses the position of the telco.
SBC chief executive Ed Whiteacre effectively began the net
neutrality controversy just over a year ago when he said that major
internet companies were 'nuts' if they thought he would continue to
carry their traffic for free to consumers' homes.
But now it is the merged AT&T/SBC business which has
provided a model which others may have to follow in how to
guarantee neutrality.
Whiteacre is now head of the merged firm and has agreed not to
sell premium access to homes for a period of two years. Though
there are some caveats to the commitment it could set a precedent
which other firms may be encouraged, or even ordered, to
follow.
"AT&T/BellSouth commits that it will maintain a neutral
network and neutral routing in its wireline broadband internet
access service," said a letter to the FCC from Robert Quinn, senior
vice president of AT&T's regulatory division.
"This commitment shall be satisfied by AT&T/BellSouth's
agreement not to provide or to sell to internet content,
application or service providers, including those affiliate with
AT&T/BellSouth, 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," said the letter.
AT&T said that it still opposed net neutrality in principle,
and there are some exceptions to the rule. It will not apply to the
high speed internet television (IPTV) service planned by the
company, or to other similar services that it might develop. The
company is also free to change its behaviour after two years,
unless a law is passed in the meantime outlawing preferential
treatment of data.
Activists, though, hailed what they saw as a milestone.
"AT&T capitulated to supporters of an open and neutral
Internet," said Ben Scott of the SavetheInternet.com Coalition.
"The agreement once and for all puts to rest the bogus argument
that no one can define Net Neutrality. The FCC just did it, and the
sky hasn't fallen. The conditions placed on this merger will show
irrefutably that net neutrality and phone company profits are not
mutually exclusive."
Whiteacre had started the debate in late 2005. Alarmed at the
amount of investment needed to keep applications such as video and
games coming into homes at fast enough speeds, he suggested
creating a separate, fast service for companies that were prepared
to pay his telco for guaranteed fast delivery.
The comments caused outrage amongst internet activists who said
that what made the internet unique and valuable was the fact that
it was essentially free and that all information was treated
equally for network transport purposes.
They said that telcos were paid by consumers to deliver all
information for a monthly fee, not to set up additional toll booths
for their own gain.
A law enforcing net neutrality was defeated in the US Congress
last year, but the make up of Congress has changed significantly
since autumn elections and legislation may be reintroduced,
political observers said.
