SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The Washington Post reports that federal regulators are likely to approve AT&T's $49 billion purchase of DirecTV in coming weeks, in exchange for several promises, including temporary acceptance of some of the Federal Communications Commission's proposed "Open Internet" net neutrality rules:
Among the deal's so-called conditions is expected to be something fairly simple. AT&T is prepared to accept aspects of the net neutrality rules adopted by the Federal Communications Commission earlier this year, according to people familiar with the negotiations, who declined to be named because the deliberations are private.
AT&T has publicly opposed making the agency's newest net neutrality rules a condition of the acquisition. It said when it first proposed the merger that it was prepared to abide by an older version of net neutrality. But in negotiations with the FCC, which must approve the deal, AT&T may be willing to go further.
If AT&T ultimately followed the newer rules for Internet providers, it would be committing to at least three things. It would honor the FCC's ban on the slowing of Web sites, as well as a ban on blocking Web sites. It would also comply with a ban against taking payments from Web site operators to speed up their content, a practice known as "paid prioritization."
It is unclear how long AT&T would be required to abide by such a commitment, said the people familiar with the plans.
AT&T is part of an industry coalition suing to roll back the net neutrality rules. But if regulators approve the deal with an AT&T commitment to net neutrality, the company would be bound by the rules for the duration of the agreement no matter what happens to the court case.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 07 2015, @11:04AM
What kind of messed up country is it where 'I'll agree to follow the laws' is a negotiating position?
(Score: 4, Informative) by maxwell demon on Sunday June 07 2015, @12:10PM
FTFS (emphasis by me):
So what they say it: "We will follow those rules even if the court says the law is invalid." That is, even if they should turn out not to be bound by law to do it.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Sunday June 07 2015, @12:17PM
If AT&T can be pressured into following those rules then the same company would likely push other corporations to do the same to avoid being at a competitive disadvantage.
Well that is if they don't do a Comcast and just ignores rules at will.
(Score: 2) by Common Joe on Monday June 08 2015, @03:52AM
Hmm... yeah, no. I don't think one (monopolistic) company pressuring other companies to follow an agreement that all parties never agreed to will work out too well in the end for anyone -- particularly us, the consumers. Besides, I think it more likely your second option (ignoring rules at will) is more likely the outcome.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Monday June 08 2015, @04:02AM
One perhaps could exploit the fact that these corporations are big and that they take time to act?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 08 2015, @01:29AM
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Sunday June 07 2015, @12:15PM
It's a country that is ruled by corporations. Thus they are really just negotiating if their practices will upset the business model of any other big enough corporation.