I'm writing to let you know about Senator Joseph Biden's (D-DE) comments yesterday concerning net neutrality, which you may not have seen.

Here is a quote from his statement dated June 30th:

"That’s why I am disappointed by the Commerce Committee’s action on the Communications Act. I had hoped that it would send to the Senate, for full debate and consideration, legislation that included language barring telecom and cable companies from discriminating by giving preferential treatment to some content providers over others."

He does not serve on the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation (the committee that introduced and voted on the bill), but he was hoping it would be given to the entire Senate for a vote, which he would have supported.

I believe the debate is not over yet, and we will be seeing more Congressional coverage on this issue in the very near future.

Thanks very much.

Erin Medlicott

Fort Lee, NJ

Erin_Medlicott@yahoo.com

One casn only surmise that, with the purchase of SBC, AT&T has assumed the mortgage on the soul of Joe Barton that was paid for over so many years by exploiting SBC customers.

As long as Republican congresspersons represent companies rather than voters, America is a loser.

The consolidation of the telecom sector is worrisome. As is AT&T's stated desire to build a fee moat around its new residential fiber network. However, the arguments for network neutrality ignore the fact that neutrality has already passed away. I can offer a few examples. First, blocking IP address ranges or entire ISPs to defend against spam certainly breaks network neutrality. A spam blockade limits the blocking ISP's customers as surely as a business deal favoring one provider over another would. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPEWS). In a similar vein, defending against DDOS attacks also involves blocking IP address ranges. (See http://www.infosyssec.org/infosyssec/security/secdos1.htm) Finally, and most damaging to the myth of network neutrality, is quality of service (QoS). QoS technology has long allowed ISPs to discriminate amongst traffic streams running over their network. Providers already charge customers differential fees for differing levels of service (or at least Providers are trying to). (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality_of_service and http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/cisintwk/ito_doc/qos.htm and http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk436/tk428/technologies_white_paper09186a00800a4455.shtml)

For residential users, most people have two choices for high-speed Internet access: Cable or Telecom (i.e., DSL). But telecom is more than just one provider because while SBC/ATT may be your local telecom you can choose another ISP, for example, Speakeasy (http://www.speakeasy.net/?dis=home). The degree of choices is far from as bleak as Farhad Manjoo's articles made out. If an ISP implements network shenanigans a user does not like that user does have other choices.

Additionally, high-speed wireless technology for the "last mile" may allow more providers to enter the market with their own infrastructure because it obviates the expense of running physical wires to homes or businesses. (See http://standards.ieee.org/announcements/80216app.html and http://www.ieee802.org/16/pub/backgrounder.html) And yet another factor militating against mega-telecom dominance is the rise of the municipal wireless network. Some municipalities are rolling out their own wireless networks to ensure their citizens have Internet access. (See http://www.technewsworld.com/story/42543.html)

I think I have shown that network neutrality is a myth and that consumers have some provider choice. Moreover, provider choice is likely to grow, not shrink, over time as new wireless technologies are deployed. Thus, to my mind, the concern over network neutrality is a product of large corporations (Microsoft, Google, etc.) fearing a new business model that does not favor them.

(Full disclosure: I work for a large telecom provider, though not one currently involved in the network neutrality brouhaha.)

First of all, your credit card company WILL suspend your card if you start making a bunch of suspicious charges (i.e. if previously all you've bought is gas and movie tickets in Waco, TX, but are now buying $1500 suits in Hong Kong), it's standard fraud prevention. Phone companies do the same thing, because when someone who usually just makes local calls starts making a significant number of int'l LD calls, especially if they're to developing countries, it's often a case of fraud (stolen calling card, workers in your house using the phone will you're out, etc.). Given that, if the calls were made from your home, it would be YOUR job to prove that you hadn't made them, these efforts by the phone company benefit you (the phone company too, since they don't have to worry about collecting from an irate customer who denies making expensive calls).

Secondly, SBC (not "Southern Bell") is buying AT&T, not the other way around.

For discussing in print something I've known about since early February. That's when I began making international long-distance calls for the first time in almost five years (previously I had Pacific Bell). I made two such calls on a Saturday, another that Sunday, but when I attempted to place a call to the same number on Monday night I was told that my "access" to international long distance had been "terminated." Several phone calls later, I finally got ahold of SBC's Fraud Department. They told me that THEY had shut off my long distance out of "concern" for the "high cost." They were worried that someone may have gotten ahold of my (never issued) calling card, and were making (unreported) fraudulent calls.

Can you say "Bullshit"? I knew you could.

It would be like a credit card issuer responding to possible fraud by canceling your card(s) without telling you.

Not long afterward I read about AT&T's purchase of Southern Bell. That leaves one or two more, and we're right back to where we started in 1980, before MCI filed its lawsuit.

Since the Republicans have amply demonstrated that they can turn back the clock on just about anything, no matter how stupid, cruel or ill-advised, I say that we Democrats turn the clock back to 1932 and renew the New Deal.