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 
Posted by: Bob Quinn on February 18, 2011 at 12:02 pm
So, yesterday afternoon, Level 3 filed a three-page, single spaced letter to FCC Chairman Genachowski explaining to him that he didn’t really mean that the Comcast/Level 3 dispute is not covered by the FCC’s recently announced net neutrality rules and the press got it wrong.
To do that, Level 3 set forth, in quotes, its version of the exchange between Congresswoman Blackburn and Chairman Genachowski and then dissected each word to conclude that the Chairman had left himself enough wiggle room for people to understand that this was not a peering dispute (wrong); that the Commission does not have the facts before it that would allow the agency to determine that this is a peering relationship (wrong again – what was in the 15 filings – yes, 15 separate filings – on this issue that Level 3 has made at the FCC if not “facts”?); that Level 3 is not asking for regulatory intervention into other services beyond the rules’ limited scope of consumer and small business broadband Internet access service (wrong a third time – Level 3 is not seeking broadband Internet access from Comcast and neither Comcast nor Level 3 is a consumer or small business); and that Level 3 is not asking for price regulation (the grand slam of wrong – Comcast wants to charge $X and Level 3 wants to pay $0. It’s all about the rate).
Despite Level 3’s strenuous efforts to spin Chairman Genachowski’s comments, his answer to Congresswoman Blackburn’s question should have made it clear to everyone that the FCC does not plan to insert itself into what the Chairman correctly described as “a commercial dispute” between companies like Level 3 and Comcast.
Read More
Posted by: Jim Cicconi on December 21, 2010 at 1:13 pm
For far too long, the question of net neutrality has hamstrung the FCC and prevented needed action on far more urgent, and real, problems. Today’s vote, we trust, will put this issue behind us with a compromise that appears to balance major differences despite a number of lingering concerns.
We appreciate the views expressed publicly by Commissioners McDowell and Baker. Theirs is, we feel, a position supported by the factual record in front of the Commission, and by law. It would also be our preference, especially given the utter absence of any evidence that abuses are occurring in the Internet market, let alone any of the gravity to justify government intervention.
At the same time, we recognize the determination of the Chairman to move forward with a rulemaking. In this circumstance, which is not ideal, our overarching concern is to bring market certainty so that investment and job creation can go forward, while ensuring that we can still meet the expectations of our customers. Though a final view must await a careful reading of the FCC’s order, we believe the Chairman’s compromise can provide this certainty while taking steps to preserve flexibility for investment and innovation.
Read More
