Slashdot Mirror
BellSouth Wants to Rig the Internet
PlayfullyClever writes "A senior telecommunications executive at BellSouth, said yesterday that Internet service providers should be allowed to strike deals to give certain Web sites or services priority in reaching computer users, a controversial system that would significantly change how the Internet operates. Some say Small Firms Could Be Shut Out of Market Championed by BellSouth Officer. William L. Smith, chief technology officer for Atlanta-based BellSouth Corp., told reporters and analysts that an Internet service provider such as his firm should be able, for example, to charge Yahoo Inc. for the opportunity to have its search site load faster than that of Google Inc." Next up, well dressed men go door to door collecting their monthly "protection money". 'It sure would be tragic if your users started getting 1500ms ping times, wouldn't it mister dot com?'
I pay the isp to access the net. I should get to pick and choose what I access without the ISP boasting some at the expense of others.
Dear Bell south you are looking a lot like Sony and SCO. Not a good thing.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
FTS: "Internet service providers should be allowed to strike deals to give certain Web sites or services priority in reaching computer users, "
As soon as they do this, then they should become legally responsible for all content that crosses their network.
Either ISPs are passive conduits, or they are not. If they can easily differentiate between packets from different sources, and filter those packets for different handling procedures, then they can take responsibility for not allowing 'illegal' packets on their network.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
That first class ticket doesn't reduce his time in the air though. He arrives the same time as the coach standby folks do.
Typical thought process for high-end executives who are used to bullying and paying through the nose to get what they want NOW.
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
It isn't an issue of competence, it's an issue of morals and ethics. If I were SEC, I'd be looking into investigating Bell South right about now.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
ISPs who do this sort of thing will, undoubtedly, be replaced by ISPs which don't. Consumers simply won't tolerate it, nor will web services.
The only real danger is the growing monopolization of Internet access, through cable and DSL, but yet we watch as wifi-based Internet access spreads and their market crumbles beneith their feet.
More fuel on the fire, BellSouth, it'll only help speed your own destruction.
hmm... as a side thought... this would make Skype and VoIP useless... maybe that's how they're going to maintain their regional monopolies?
Watch for Penguins, they eat Apples and throw rocks at Windows.
That first class ticket doesn't reduce his time in the air though. He arrives the same time as the coach standby folks do.
No, but for an extra $500 we won't make you wait an extra half hour to deplane....
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Listen up BellSouth, I AM YOUR CUSTOMER, not Yahoo! or Google. If you can't give me good access to the sites I am interested in visiting then I switch to Cox's cable modem. And if they can't show me the speed I crave then I look for other options.
This is exactly what happens when governments grant monopolies. BellSouth has been taking their customers for granted since they spun away from the AT&T motnership, which also took us for granted. After all, where can we really go? Like most regions of the US with broadband, we have government monopoly A (BellSouth) or government monopoly B (Cox) and while they can be played off one another just a little, they co-own the Louisiana Public Service Commission that makes the rules and aren't above conspiring together to keep their cost down and the users downtrodden.
The baby bells must be broken again. They can keep the monpoly on the copper or fiber but must NOT be permitted to own or operate any of the higher level protocols or have any business entanglements with anyone who does. I'm serious, we need a seperate company that JUST owns and maintains the physical plant and leases space on a totally non-discrimnatory basis in the CO to as many companies that want to install voice switches, DSLAMS, etc. as can fit into the building.... and have rules so a carrier can even pay to make the building bigger.
Democrat delenda est
Everyone said for decades that phone companies "don't understand the Internet". They understand it all right - they just don't like it. So now we've got SBC saying they want to charge companies like Google to route their traffic, even if Google is already paying another company to which Google is directly connected. And BellSouth is saying they want to charge companies like Google more to carry their traffic according to the specifications. Verizon (rhymes with "NYNEX"), typically the most evil of the RBOCs, has yet to announce their vicious attack on Google's profits, but it surely will be greedy and based on some kind of preferential treatment - or threat of witholding it.
It's obvious that these telcos are jealous of Google and the big bucks connected with it. They want their cut, not by competing to provide better products, but by threatening to make their products worse unless their extortion money is paid. Back in the 1990s, they tried to force extra fees on dialup customers, on ISPs, based on lies about phone switch capacity. They tried selling ISDN from clueless salespeople for ripoff prices after unpredictable and interminable installation delays. Then they screwed up DSL deployment on a bigger scale. All along they succeeded in buying up and regulating out the competition, while everyone said they didn't understand the Internet. Which diverted investment to companies like Google, as well as the smart entrepreneurs. Now that they've consolidated American bandwidth into the bottlenecks that they monopolize, these old dinosaurs are moving in for the kill. If there's not enough competition to let Google and mom/pop choose an equitable Internet like the one we've built these last 10-20 years, we need to snap the neck of their new monopolies with legislation. There's no reason we have to let their loophole victories over past monopoly remedies and market corrections choke off the developments that have happened despite their vile presence in the landscape.
--
make install -not war
You have already welcomed them most likely.
QoS, priorities and ToS have been known for more then a decade. The fact is, till recently they have been used mostly in third world and beyond where the bandwidth is scarce, fiber is unheard of and you have to use something like this to achieve a competitive edge. I have used it myself as far back as late nighties. Similarly, we had customer facing web based helldesk, customer facing link statistics, customer facing web ordering system for extras and specials etc as far back as late nineties.
None of these were widely used around the civilized world till recently because it was cheaper to invest in more hardware and bandwidth to achieve similar results.
This is no longer the case.
Very few if any new fiber is layed in the ground and the router CPUs/ASICs are finally catching up for the bandwidths used in telco land. Further to this, the players are few and largely evened up so they have no choice, but to look into network intelligence as means of gaining a competitive edge. Some have already rolled it out. Many laughed at the first ones like Level3 which at the time had a rather primitive QoS system with 4 queues and 4 types of traffic. Nobody is laughing any more and network policy devices are the most looked at item in labs trials for all new roll outs.
Our QoS overlords are coming and will here to stay.
And once you have provided a MaBell telcohead with the tool expecting them not to use it is rather silly. From there on it is only a matter of how much do they use it. If they overuse it they risk getting smacked by a threat to lose their common carrier status as well as a few anticompetitive investigations. How do they consider this risk is a different matter.
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
This sounds like a great idea. The moment they start looking at every packet that crosses their network, they will be responsible for every illegal activity. Every person that is on their network that gets a virus should sue them. Every piece of kiddie porn should warrant a case against them. If they are stupid enough to give up their Common Carrier status for a few bucks, they should be sued out of existance so that someone can come in that actually serves the customers, rather than screws them.
Learn to love Alaska
This story reminds me of a funny dispute between CNN and the Amsterdam cable TV company:
Cable co. "We will start charging you for providing access to your viewers"
- CNN: "Well, actually you should really pay us, for providing content for your cable network"
Cable co: "Pay or we will remove CNN from our lineup"
- CNN: "Fine, we'll take our content elsewhere"
The cable TV model worked quite well: customers pay the cable company for physical access to various stations. These stations provide content for free, supported by ads, or at an extra charge to the customers. In this case, some idiot exec got greedy and tried to charge both sides of the network. Fortunately, neither side wasn't having any of that. CNN didn't play ball, and customers didn't exactly relish the idea of paying twice for content, and threatened to buy satellite dishes and ditch cable. After a few weeks, CNN was put back onto the network, for free.
This case is much the same. Over here, we have a choice of backbone networks and ISPs re-selling access to those backbones. Any ISP trying to pull a stunt like this will see their customers melt away. After all, people have gotten used to the idea of flat rate Internet access, in facr that's what ISPs used to lure people over to ADSL.
However, in cases were there is a monopoly of one or a few companies working together, they can and will get away with it.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
...I wonder why he doesn't try it on his phone systems first?
"Hello, Coca-Cola? Yeah, listen, I just wanted you to know that we just cut a new deal with Pepsi, that gives their phone calls priority on our systems. Yeah, it's an exclusive deal and all. Basically my engineers tell me that any call of yours routed through our systems will receive a 10% degredation in signal quality and experience approximately a 3 second delay in connection. I'm sure you understand, just the cost of doing business and all. If you're interested, perhaps I can tell you about our new Super Platinum plan, which would give your calls Level 2 High Priority, ensuring that....hello?"
Unfortunately, you're showing your ignorance. Let me walk you through it:
Careful there. You might find yourself confused with the kettle, pot.
A Business' sole goal is to maximize profit for its shareholders, and nothing else.
False.
The goal that a business must keep as a top-level goal is to maximize shareholder value. This is not the same as "this quarter's profit" or even "profit" over any time frame (though they eventually become related).
Further, many companies interpret "shareholder value" as stock value over the long-term, which is often at odds with actions that would increase stock value in the short-term.
As a conclusive counter-example, check out Johnson & Johnson's credo. Shareholder value is fourth on that list and it's been below other goals for the past 60 years.
Regards,
Ross
The difference is that I am BellSouth's customer, not Yahoo. This is the equivalent of HBO paying a cable company not to carry all of the Showtime channels, and then telling me its good for me because of all the HBO channels I get.
Well, my cable customer service sucks too.
So, my last roommate moved out. The phone was in his name. BellSouth (BS) wants $40 to get it in my name. So I say fine, disconnect it, I'm going to VoIP. VoIP doesn't work well with the cable internet due to latency issues. BS is running ad campaigns here about $25/mo. DSL service. So I call them from work to order it. The Customer Rep. wants to know the phone #. I say I don't have one. I go round and round about the advertisement. I cannot get DSL without first getting POTS. I don't want POTS. Customer Rep: doesn't compute, must have POTS. The house is wired, it is within DSL range, but BS will not hook up DSL without POTS. The rep says that I can get POTS from another provider, and then get DSL. All other POTS providers cost more. Solution: Landlord, who lives below me, is willing to let me get my DLS thru her. She pays for POTS, I pay for DSL and share with her.
My main compaint is that BS runs deceptive ads (there is fine print, but I cannot read it quickly enough) and doesn't spell out in clear language to the customer reps that the customer cannot get DSL without POTS.
I believe that in Georgia, you can get "naked" DSL due to a state law that forces BS to unbundle. They are headquarted in Georgia. Don't they understand that what customers want in Georgia might be the same thing that customers in Alabama might also want? Do I have to get a politician to pass a law for me to get unbundled DSL?
The short answer: the cable company and the phone companies both suck when it comes to internet service. They both have big cash cows that are not directly related to internet service other than the fact that they have infrastructure to your house which can be used to provide broadband.
Acutaly if they start discriminating between packets of different origins, it could interfere with their comomon carrier status. If they can expidite packets from let's say yahoo, then they can route packets from a kiddie-porn site to the bit-bucket, If they do discriminate between packets, an arguement can be made that they are responsible, for what's inside those packets. Now they aren't responsible because they move the packets equally. Bell South needs to get their lawyer's involved before they actualy do anything, they probably should have before they started spouting off in interviews. This is a can of worms that they might later wish hadn't been opened.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds