Enabling FaceTime Over Our
Mobile Broadband Network

Posted by: Bob Quinn on August 22, 2012 at 8:56 am

Last week, we confirmed plans to make FaceTime available over our mobile broadband network for our AT&T Mobile Share data plan customers. 

FaceTime is a video chat application that has been pre-loaded onto every AT&T iPhone since the introduction of iPhone 4.  Customers have been using this popular app for several years over Wi-Fi.  AT&T does not have a similar preloaded video chat app that competes with FaceTime or any other preloaded video chat application.  Nonetheless, in another knee jerk reaction, some groups have rushed to judgment and claimed that AT&T’s plans will violate the FCC’s net neutrality rules.  Those arguments are wrong. 

Providers of mobile broadband Internet access service are subject to two net neutrality requirements: (1) a transparency requirement pursuant to which they must disclose accurate information regarding the network management practices, performance, and commercial terms of their broadband Internet access services; and (2) a no-blocking requirement under which they are prohibited, subject to reasonable network management, from blocking applications that compete with the provider’s voice or video telephony services.

AT&T’s plans for FaceTime will not violate either requirement.  Our policies regarding FaceTime will be fully transparent to all consumers, and no one has argued to the contrary.  There is no transparency issue here. 

Nor is there a blocking issue.  The FCC’s net neutrality rules do not regulate the availability to customers of applications that are preloaded on phones.  Indeed, the rules do not require that providers make available any preloaded apps.  Rather, they address whether customers are able to download apps that compete with our voice or video telephony services.   AT&T does not restrict customers from downloading any such lawful applications, and there are several video chat apps available in the various app stores serving particular operating systems. (I won’t name any of them for fear that I will be accused by these same groups of discriminating in favor of those apps.  But just go to your app store on your device and type “video chat.”)  Therefore, there is no net neutrality violation.

Read More

AT&T’s Cicconi on Net Neutrality
Before Congressional Hearing

Posted by: AT&T Blog Team on March 9, 2011 at 12:55 pm

The U.S. House Subcommittee on Communications and Technology today held a hearing on H.J. Res 37, disapproving of the FCC’s net neutrality order, which the Commission adopted in December.  Jim Cicconi, AT&T Senior Executive Vice President of External and Legislative Affairs, delivered the following statement:

Chairman Walden, Ranking Member Eshoo, Chairman Upton, Chairman Waxman, Chairman Barton, distinguished members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to testify today on behalf of my company, AT&T.  I recognize it is unusual to be asked to testify on a resolution on which we’ve not taken a position.  However, as I’m sure all of you know, we have been involved for years in the issue that underlies H.J. Res. 37, and that is the protracted dispute over net neutrality regulation by the FCC.

Let me first stress that AT&T has long supported the “broadband principles” laid out by the FCC six years ago.  We support an open Internet, and have promised to abide by that concept.  But like many issues that start from a shared belief, this one quickly devolved into a long and contentious debate over specifics:  whether the FCC should be able to enforce the broadband principles; whether a broad set of rules was needed; what legal authority the FCC has to put any such rules in place.  And all of this despite any real evidence of a problem.

As in most regulatory debates, this one has not lacked for radical voices.  Many sought heavy-handed government regulation and control of free markets… some for commercial advantage, others to advance their own ideology.   Since this debate began back in 2005, AT&T has consistently opposed any FCC regulation of Internet services or facilities.  This is still our strong preference today.  We feel the antitrust laws, the Federal Trade Act, and the discipline of highly competitive markets are more than adequate to police any potential abuses. 

Read More