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?'
Of all the low-down dirty extortionist ideas ever hatched. No one's stopping him from using QoS routing right now but what he's proposing is pure opportunistic greed. I suppose it doesn't matter to him--he makes enough money that he can afford to throw away an extra $200/mo. should policies like this ever become commonplace. As for the masses: Let them eat cake!
fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
Would this not take away their status and the protections of common carrier status if they start playing with what/who goes through their system?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
At least you could have removed all the caps in the sentance "Some say Small Firms Could Be Shut Out of Market Championed by BellSouth Officer" and fooled me... sheesh...
-everphilski-
the European Court of Justice would not allow such an arrangement, article 81 is very harsh on vertical arrangements like this.
As long as ISPs get penalized for every piece of SPAM they allow to float around, for every SPAMmer they allow to operate unhindered using their services, for every shady business or phishing site they allow to run unabated, and when Satan can skate on his swimming pool.
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
I called them and asked them why are some downloads (podcasts) being cut-off. They said they don't intentionally cut it off, but they did let me in on something they do. They said they give some packets priorities. They give priorities to email and website traffic.
If an ISP or backbone wants to give up all of its common-carrier rights, including immunity when some l33t haxxor plants death threats to the President or worse on Yahoo, then maybe.
Otherwise, no.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
This would give Yahoo the leverage to say to BellSouth: if you want to have ANY major search engine/portal in your network, better provide unrestricted access to our domain.
Net result: Google owns their own 'Net, Yahoo pwns BellSouth.
Height: 38U, Weight: 0 Newtons, Eyes: #0000FF, OS: Gray Matter 1.0 (Alpha)
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.
I assume they would want to use some form of QoS to control traffic. However there would be a few problems that would arise from this. Let's say for instance Yahoo uses a seperate backbone from Google. Would this ISP then force Google traffic to slowdown? Or how about if Yahoo has more hops than Google? There are so many factors that affect Internet traffic that for an ISP to fully control them would be quite difficult. On most high-bandwidth ISPs where links hardly get clogged, one would certainly have to force low priority sites to slowdown.
BellSouth proposes an end-run around whatever deals or features your ISP may offer by selling packet priority to the highest bidder. Your ISP will not see any of this money, neither as direct kickbacks or as reduced service costs. Moreover, your ISP will now suck more, because their packets will receive lower priority.
There's a reason Judge Green drew a very firm line between content and carriage -- to prevent precisely this kind of extortionate behavior.
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
This will fly like a lead balloon when people suddenly find that sites that are not huge commercial sites (such as this one, Wikipedia, university sites, or the government) load so poorly. They will gripe and whine like crazy because their Net performance suddenly went down the john. And if some enterprising ISP decides NOT to do this, people will likely flock to them and thus erode the customer base of BellSouth, et al.
People will only generally put up with things that inconvenience them only if they feel that they are getting much more in return. BellSouth would have to have 8Mbps access for about $15 a month for this to fly, and they better have a standard service available at regular rates and regular bandwidths available for people who want regular Net access unless they want to see everybody jump elsewhere.
Just "gittin-r-done," day after day.
> 1. The same price as BT's services division, and
> 2. A price that the regulator deems fair.
That only works so long as #2 can't be influenced by the telco, and here in Lousiana USA that ain't ever going to be so. We have the best pols money can buy, have for over a century and probably still will a century from now.
You see, BellSouth already must allow 'equal access' at the same price they charge their bellsouth.net division. But they set that price at insane levels so that bellsouth.net (the supposedly independent non-regulated division that sells Internet access) doesn't show much profit while bellsouth.com (the regulated monopoly that happens to own bellsouth.net) shows all the profits.
Democrat delenda est
Docs Searls of Linux Journal wrote an interesting piece a few weeks called Flushing the Net Down the Tube where he talks about this happening.
The providers don't want to be just the guys that rent the pipes because there's not enough money in it. They'd like to be able to control content and charge for extra services. Sprint's music downloads is an example where this is already happening. (You can get highspeed music downlads but only through their vendor lock-in service.)
According to Searls' article the providers have watched companies like ebay and google make fortunes on the Internet using their pipes. They feel left out and want to get in on the action. Expect more of this.
Bellsouth already have some rather 'dubious' business practices. For instance, the City in which I live has proposed that our local (City owned) utility company will provide fiber in the home to all our residents. Bellsouth have been raising every type of spurious legal claim possible to try and block this measure, even though it was widely supported in a referendum (forced by Bellsouth!). Currently, Bellsouth provides DSL service in this area and Cox provides cable. It is a basic duopoly. Needless to say, the rates are much higher than elsewhere. Earthlink does provide cheaper service. However, one can only use Earthlink if one has local telephone service from...you guessed it,...Bellsouth. My phone service is provided by AT and T. They cannot provide DSL service, because it is blocked by...you guessed it, Bellsouth. I complained about this situation to the FCC. However, the day after I lodged my complaint, the FCC made a ruling saying it was just fine for Bellsouth to behave this way. So, these new 'ideas' from Bellsouth appear to be part of their on-going plans to hold on to their near monopoly situation. I think that it stinks. I cannot wait for the city fiber to arrive at my house.
But they are clearly missing that they can suffer from the same effect too. Imagine this:
Web sites could even take adds: tired of slow access via Bell South? Switch to Earthlink for faster searching!
I bet it looks like less of a moneymaker if they consider that.
The person who owns the lines can't sell directly to the consumer, however anyone else can act as an intermediary.
That's a good theory on paper -- but they tried something similar with utilities and it has been a miserable failure in my humble opinion.
In NYS when they deregulated the electric industry they forced all of the utilities to sell off their generators and to become "distributors" of electricity. The net result you ask? All of the power plants were bought up by out of state interests and now they have the public and the distribution utilities by the balls.
In a telecommunications scenario I fail to see how having a single monopoly that owns the fiber/copper but doesn't deal directly with consumers would be any better then having a regulated utility that owns the fiber and deals with the consumer. I know a lot of people don't like regulation because it doesn't mesh with their idea of the "free market" but I don't see any other choice for a life essential service -- unless new technology charges the paradigm.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.