[ NNSquad ] Re: "TW Bandwidth Cap Experiment" thread is closing ...

[Wes Felter <wesley@felter.org>]

On Jan 18, 2008, at 6:45 PM, Michael Eisenmenger wrote:

> Finally - what of IPTV systems like AT&T, how would this same  
> scenario play on that type of network delivery system - would it be  
> more obviously a net neutrality issue?

AFAIK, U-verse has two ATM virtual circuits over the 24 Mbps DSL  
line: one for Internet (up to 6 Mbps) and one for IPTV (~18 Mbps).  
The IPTV network runs IP but does not connect to the Internet. No  
doubt AT&T will claim that these are separate networks that just  
happen to use similar protocols and are carried over the same  
physical line and thus the private IPTV network should not be subject  
to any NN provisions.

(I'll save Bob Frankston the trouble and preemptively link his rant  
on this topic: http://www.frankston.com/public/?name=OnePercent )

Wes Felter - wesley@felter.org - http://felter.org/wesley/

   [ Right -- "virtual" -- a term that can cover a multitude of sins!
     Bob's piece referenced above is definitely worth reading.
     Like he says, "a bit is a bit."

     Oh, by the way, just as a weekend treat, what does an AT&T roadside
     cabinet (in this case my local B-Box) look like the day after a loud
     vehicle-caused "thump" that cut off all services one evening:
     http://www.vortex.com/exbbox.jpg

            -- Lauren Weinstein
               NNSquad Moderator ]