Stop AT&T From Damaging the Neutrality of the Internet!

"Paid prioritization is a financial arrangement where a third-party content owner can pay an ISP to 'cut to the front of the line' at congested nodes, or where an ISP engages in 'vertical prioritization' by favoring its own content."

"Paid prioritization is the antithesis to openness, and any regulatory framework that does not presume that such arrangements are harmful to consumers and competition is not real Net Neutrality -- it's fake Net Neutrality trying to pass as protections that will actually preserve the open Internet."

"First, ISPs will only be able to form a small number of paid-priority relationships: Because of the negative impact on non-paid priority content, consumers will be less willing to pay for broadband service if an ISP prioritizes too much content, and an ISP's revenue gains from prioritization will not be enough to offset the losses stemming from user defection and devaluation. Also, the value of the prioritization to a third-party is directly proportional to how much faster their content loads in comparison to non-prioritized content, but the more priority relationships an ISP has, the less this difference in load time. These factors create the reality that ISPs will only be able to prioritize a small amount of content, whether their own vertical content or the content of a few select third parties. History shows those few select third parties will be those with the deepest pockets and biggest established brands, not new entrepreneurs, non-profits, or socially disadvantaged businesses."

"Second, the revenue potential from third-party prioritization is low: Unless network owners are blocking certain Web traffic outright, it isn't clear at all that content providers would be willing to pay for this form of accelerated delivery, when services like local caching (CDNs) are sufficient to deliver low-cost, quality streaming video. Today, this entire market for this "geographic prioritization" in the U.S. is less than one billion in annual revenues -- on the order of less than one-half of one percent of all current ISP annual revenues."

"ISPs will use vertical prioritization to preserve legacy voice, SMS and video revenues: Because ISPs are bound by the laws of physics and supply and demand, they will not be able to generate substantial new revenue streams from paid-prioritization over the public Internet. But they will be able to use discriminatory prioritization to favor their own vertical content. The motivation for ISPs opposition to nondiscrimination is not the desire to earn new revenues, but to protect legacy voice, SMS and video revenues from the forces of competition enabled by the open Internet."

"ISPs will form a few limited and exclusive third-party priority relationships to avoid competition through product differentiation: ISPs will likely strike exclusive third-party priority relationships, but will not do so for the revenues they will generate, but because such exclusive deals will serve as a method of product differentiation. History has shown that such business strategies are often anti-consumer and anticompetitive, as they enable companies to avoid meaningful competition on their core access services."

"A level playing field for Internet transport. It refers to the absence of restrictions or priorities placed on the type of content carried over the Internet by the carriers and ISPs that run the major backbones. It states that all traffic be treated equally; that packets are delivered on a first-come, first-served basis regardless from where they originated or to where they are destined."

A more detailed explanation:

"Network neutrality (also net neutrality, Internet neutrality) is a principle proposed for user access networks participating in the Internet that advocates no restrictions by Internet service providers and governments on content, sites, platforms, the kinds of equipment that may be attached, and the modes of communication allowed."

"The principle states that if a given user pays for a certain level of Internet access, and another user pays for the same level of access, then the two users should be able to connect to each other at the subscribed level of access."

"Though the term did not enter popular use until several years later, since the early 2000s advocates of net neutrality and associated rules have raised concerns about the ability of broadband providers to use their last mile infrastructure to block Internet applications and content (e.g., websites, services, protocols), particularly those of competitors."

"Neutrality proponents claim that telecom companies seek to impose a tiered service model in order to control the pipeline and thereby remove competition, create artificial scarcity, and oblige subscribers to buy their otherwise uncompetitive services. Many believe net neutrality to be primarily important as a preservation of current freedoms."

One of AT&T policy makers, a VP, has refered to supporters of net neutrality as members of the "Church of Extreme Net Neutrality" and dismisses their views as "dogma". Since this "opinion" was presented before Congress during testimony, we can assume this person speaks for the management of AT&T. Apparently AT&T's current tactic is to paint the opposition as religious wackos, just because they want a fair Internet.

AT&T's market cap is over $160 billion and it makes over $120 billion in revenue! -- Yahoo Finance

"AT&T Inc. is the largest provider of fixed telephony in the United States, and also provides broadband and subscription television services. AT&T is the second largest provider of mobile telephony service in the United States, with over 92.8 million wireless customers, just behind Verizon Wireless' 93.2 million, and more than 210 million total customers."

"As of 2010[update], AT&T is the 7th largest company in the United States by total revenue, as well as the 3rd largest non-oil company in the US (Behind Walmart and Bank of America). In 2010, Forbes listed AT&T as the 13th largest company in the world and the 8th largest non-oil company in the world, the largest company in the world not associated with banking or oil, as well as the world's largest provider of telecommunication."

"According to a lawsuit filed against other telecommunications companies for violating customer privacy, AT&T began preparing facilities for the NSA to monitor "phone call information and Internet traffic" seven months before 9/11."

AT&T CEO: We Don't Promote $10 DSL Because No One Wants It (WTF?)

You can spread the word to your friends and family. You can send an email to your congressman and the FCC. Also, you can help protect the First Amendment by joing the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and help protect your rights online by joining the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF).

Further Reading About AT&T And It's Anti-Consumer Practice Of Paid Prioritization: AT&T Misleads FCC about 'Paid Prioritization' on the Internet AT&T Defends Paid Prioritization Of Web Traffic AT&T writes FCC in favor of paid prioritization AT&T: no one can stop our "paid prioritization" Sorry AT&T, Title II Would Not "Require" Paid Prioritization OTI Files Response to AT&T's Mischaracterization of Paid Prioritization on the Internet Further Reading About Net Neutrality: Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) Articles on Net Neutrality ACLU Articles on Free Speech and Net Neutrality The corporate deal to control your Internet Just say no to fake Net neutrality Google's Stand on Net Neutrality How Comcast, AT&T and Big Telecoms Threaten the Reach of Progressive Artists Save The Internet: Frequently Asked Questions @ Save The Internet Save The Internet at MoveOn.org Writers Guild of America East: Tell the FCC to Save the Internet Internet Freedom Coalition Stop the Cap!

• Stop ATT From Taking Your Web - Robert Reich (May 12, 2006) -- Yes, AT&T has been trying to wreck the Web for years!

• AT&T Vying For 'Worst Company Ever' Award -- This is a funny article, mostly because it is so close to being true.

Frank Herbert (a critically acclaimed and commercially successful, American, science fiction author) said, "He who can destroy a thing, can control a thing". The opposite is also true, "He who can control a thing, can destroy a thing". Do we want companies like AT&T to control the Internet?

Addendum

AT&T offers cloud based services called Synaptic Hosting, Synaptic Compute, Synaptic Storage, Synaptic Platform and TopLineISV. Protesting their policies on synaptichosting.com, synapticcompute.com, synapticstorage.com, synapticplatform.com and toplineisv.com is intended to show those looking for AT&T's cloud based services what an awful anti-consumer version of Net Neutrality AT&T believes in and hopefully it will cause some potential customers to choose another company like the alternative cloud based services listed next.

No. First of all, AT&T never trademarked the terms "Synaptic Hosting", "Synaptic Compute", "Synaptic Storage", "Synaptic Platform" or "TopLineISV". (Source: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office) Second, this website is protected as free speech under the First Amendment, so trademark law does not apply. "What does the First Amendment protect?" is an excellent resource on this topic.

Send an email to Comments may be posted to this site. Your first name and location would be appreciated. Your email address will not be posted. Please note: The email address listed above is the only contact point for this website. Contact coming from any other source will be ignored.