Posted by: AT&T Blog Team on September 1, 2010 at 2:03 pm
Authored by Joseph Marx, AT&T Assistant Vice President of Federal Regulatory
The U.S. Department of Transportation earlier this year proposed a new set of rules toughening the air shipping requirements on lithium ion batteries and devices containing these batteries. The rationale behind this proposal focuses on a concern that these batteries could overheat or catch fire.
Every year, billions of lithium batteries are shipped via air and yet the Transportation Department has not pointed to one incident when a lithium ion battery, or a product containing such a battery, overheated or caught fire when shipped according to existing domestic and international guidelines. Everyone agrees that safety is non-negotiable. If the U.S. does anything, it should harmonize its existing rules with the more stringent international recommendations and enforce these regulations, not put new rules in place that would disadvantage U.S. consumers for no net benefit.
The side story that no one has focused on is what happens if the U.S. deviates from the international standard and imposes different and more burdensome rules than other countries. These new requirements could fundamentally change how every U.S. consumer electronics business, including the wireless industry, does business. The U.S. has traditionally been the first to get every new wireless gadget that comes off the assembly line. Well, not anymore. If the new rules are put in place it could limit delivery of devices containing lithium ion batteries to transport methods or delivery locations other than those used with air delivery.
Can you imagine waiting three months to get delivery of new handsets from overseas while they are being delivered by boat? It will be a great Christmas, in March. How about waiting an additional week for a replacement for your wireless phone when it breaks? Consumers have come to expect the quick turnaround that overnight delivery allows when it comes to replacing their broken wireless devices.
Posted by: Hank Hultquist on August 31, 2010 at 11:22 am
One of the central dogmas of the Church of Extreme Net Neutrality (CoENN) is that quality of service on the Internet, or using the preferred nomenclature of the CoENN, “paid prioritization,” is the equivalent of a deadly sin.
The CoENN creed against quality of service states that paid prioritization of Internet traffic: (1) has never been contemplated by standards organizations like the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF); (2) does not exist on the Internet today and, to the extent it exists anywhere, is probably being used nefariously by the pagans; and (3) if it did exist on the Internet, it would be available to and affordable for only a small number of deep-pocketed hegemons.
These iniquities of paid prioritization are spelled out in a recent filing at the FCC in which Free Press preaches the old time religion of the dumb network. But, like so many dogmas, this one turns out to be, well, not exactly true.
Which leads me to the letter we filed yesterday in the FCC’s Open Internet proceeding to correct the record with respect to paid prioritization. In a nutshell, we point out that, contrary to the CoENN’s claims: (1) the IETF documents clearly contemplate and permit differentiated pricing of Internet traffic based on the use of prioritization; (2) paid prioritization of Internet traffic is widely available to businesses today; and (3) such prioritization is often voluntarily purchased by small and medium-sized enterprises, including minority-owned businesses and community organizations.
Posted by: Chris Boyer on August 30, 2010 at 10:32 am
Earlier this year, I wrote about AT&T’s plans to enable AT&T U-verse TV subscribers to use their Xbox 360 (and, potentially further down the road, Windows 7 PCs) as a U-verse set-top box (STB). I also talked about how those plans had the potential to be responsive to FCC Chairman Genachowski’s call for more innovation in the video device marketplace, which in turn could increase broadband adoption.
In April, the FCC initiated a proceeding to review whether or not video providers, such as AT&T, should be required to install a gateway device in subscribers’ homes that would enable third party retail devices to access video services over the home network without the need for a STB on each TV. We recently filed reply comments in this proceeding.
AT&T has long emphasized that it is not interested in serving as the exclusive provider of equipment for our U-verse TV service. To the contrary, our goal is to maximize the inherent flexibility of offering a 100% IPTV-based service that provides cutting-edge content and applications over a broad range of devices and across multiple screens.
We have engaged in a series of discussions with the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA), spearheading the development of IPTV interoperability principles and co-chairing CEA’s IPTV Oversight and Coordination Committee. This group included IPTV, cable and content providers, satellite operators, and consumer electronic companies, and was tasked with ensuring the development of interoperability standards for IPTV.
These efforts culminated in a proposal for a “carrier gateway device” similar to what the FCC has proposed. However, to the extent that this model has foundered to date it has been because of an impasse over the extent to which a CE device would replicate the user interface or “look and feel” of the video service.
Posted by: AT&T Blog Team on August 25, 2010 at 3:38 pm
Authored by Marianne Strobel, AT&T Executive Director of Supplier Diversity
At AT&T, we are proud to have achieved some of the highest supplier diversity spending results in the country. In 2009 alone, we spent $6.9 billion dollars, or 14.2 percent of our total procurement, with diversity suppliers. This spending supported 37,722 external diverse small business jobs, and 14,271 external women-owned small business jobs in the economy.
That’s why we have partnered with leading business organizations and our large suppliers to launch a series of Business Matchmakers to bring opportunities to small, minority, women-owned and service-disabled veteran owned businesses. Earlier this month, in keeping with our long-standing commitment to supplier diversity, we held an event in Washington, D.C.to help connect local minority-owned businesses with purchasing representatives from AT&T and several of our company’s prime contractors.
Posted by: Joan Marsh on August 17, 2010 at 4:57 pm
I got a lot of reaction to my original blog entitled Wireless is Different. Some good, some critical, but all of it important to the debate. I welcomed it all, especially the responses from those that disagreed, because it creates an opportunity for a better explanation, a more detailed understanding of what’s actually happening out there on our wireless networks.
Some just are not convinced that wireless is in fact different in any way that matters to the net neutrality debate. While they didn’t rebut the fundamental points I made regarding the finite nature of wireless network capacity, they viewed the argument as a strawman for some underlying intent by wireless network providers to block apps and services at their whim. At its core, this opposition is rooted in a fundamental concern about who is going to control the apps and services that wireless network providers deliver over their finite and shared wireless infrastructure.
The answer to that is quite simply: the customer. User consumption is fueling the new mobile broadband revolution and there is not a wireless network provider out there doing anything but trying to keep up. Again, let’s turn to some facts.