AT&T recently declared that paid traffic was a part of the initial concept behind the creation of the Internet. Computer users, they declared, were meant to pay for special, priority access. AT&T claims that the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) added “DiffServ” to allow for paid prioritization on the Internet.

The IETF’s current chairman, Russ Housley, said that AT&T is incorrect, and that the DiffServ was meant to allow network providers decide how to deal with Internet traffic, but there was never any reference to payment. The Federal Communications Commission also suggested that Internet neutrality is the best way, and Google and Verizon agreed on open Internet access. They are obviously not too pleased with AT&T.

DiffServ was meant for a variety of purposes, and the original document includes the possibility of “differentiated pricing.” However, it’s unclear as to whether the founders were suggesting that the Internet should had a divided pricing scheme, or if they were observing the possibility of different prices. Also, the differentiated pricing could be for the users or the network providers or businesses; it wasn’t clearly stated.

AT&T doesn’t have much to go on apart from this old quote, but they are determined to push the priority pay argument. There are no laws to determine this issue, as the Internet is still so new, so AT&T is turning to history for help.

AT&T believes that any Net neutrality plan that prevents them from engaging in “paid prioritization” is not in line with the principles of the Internet. AT&T declared that they already have many customers who would be willing to pay a higher fee for faster Internet access. However, if telecommunications providers can set different prices for different users, Net neutrality will diminish, and some individuals believe the practice is illegal or unfair. The Free Press, an advocacy group, claimed that AT&T’s proposal was discriminatory, and that the Internet should remain equal and open.