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?'

Comments

They just never quit

[SilverspurG]

"If I go to the airport, I can buy a coach standby ticket or a first-class ticket," Smith said. "In the shipping business, I can get two-day air or six-day ground."

Or when I go to the library the librarian can charge me an additional fee to use the encyclopedias. Or when he goes to Washington he have his lobbying group slip a few extra G-notes to the proper politicians to have his pet legislation prioritized. Or when enough websites have been scammed in then the next thing will be to start charging users,"Is your 3 megabit connection too slow when loading Slashdot? For an extra fee of $15/mo. we will allow you to prioritize any 5 domains!" It'll be just like returning to the good old days of minute by minute access charges. Always watching the clock wondering if the extra access charge might be worth it and counting the pennies left in the piggy bank to see if there's enough for your son to be able to afford class textbooks, lunch money, and decent network access. Maybe he'll just have to suffer with 20 minute load times for a 3 mb document.

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!

Re:They just never quit

[ergo98]

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!

The telcos have a long and storied history of making money hand over fist, with no competition, in the telephone subscriber realm, so this is just another desperate attempt at doing something before that money trough is removed (it's rapidly disappearing). In a free market it should be the case that subscribers can say "FU!" this this man, going with competitors, but unfortunately there isn't enough competition in most areas yet (so you get the casual collusion where they all mirror the same restrictive policies). Maybe WiMax will change the landscape a bit.

Re:They just never quit

[Shakrai]

I'm not blaming an industry, but it is invariably an industry that is subsidized by voice subscribers. A few of the Bells have credibly supplanted that with a good wireless cash flow, but for most there are some scary times ahead (as most have shown a tremendous inability to operate in any other market successfully).

Well any business that is branching off into new endeavors is going to be subsidized by existing customers. I can't speak for Bell South (although, historically, they were considered to have the best customer service of the Baby Bells -- WTF happened???) but in my area Verizon seems to be doing very well at branching off into non-voice endeavors. It's more impressive in my area where they barely advertise their DSL product (other then fliers with your bill) -- Roadrunner has a friggen commercial in every single commercial break.

I have a telco background so I'm understandably biased when it comes to defending them -- but no matter how much people hate the phone company I wish they would stop rooting for it's downfall. Do you really think it would be any better to have the cable company completely control your internet/voice/TV? Voice I suppose you could replace with a cell phone and TV with a dish (sucks for local channels though) -- but you'd be hosed on the internet.

I can't wait for FIOS to come to my town. It will be very interesting to see how the cable company holds up when the telcos have the ability to go after the people subsidizing their internet and voice ventures (the TV viewers).

Hopefully the consumer will win.

Re:They just never quit

[Shakrai]

I worked at a telco as well, and left on good terms. Indeed, my post was simply an observation on the state of telcos (and what inspires things like this PHBs ridiculous suggestion) - I'm not rooting for anything (apart from good competition).

No, you didn't seem to be :) That was just a statement meant for general consumption.

I want to see good and fair competition. I've heard of various townships and cities blocking Verizon from moving forward with FiOS TV service because they want to force them to get a franchise agreement like the cable companies have.

That's all well and good until you realize that the cable companies didn't need to get franchise agreements before they started pushing voice down their pipe and selling their VoIP product as a "replacement" for the "hassles" of POTS service.

So how about a level playing field? I would purpose one citywide franchising agreement for all providers of telecommunications and entertainment services. I wouldn't want to see the franchise agreements disposed of entirely (they do give the people -- through their elected officials -- a last resort if they are being screwed by a monopoly) but they should be applied fairly.

Re:They just never quit

[ClickOnThis]

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.

I'll resist the temptation to point out the difference between morals and ethics. (See the movie "Election" starring Matthew Broderick and Reese Witherspoon for an example.)

Anyway, the real point here is that the SEC really has nothing to do with policing the morals and ethics of a company. It is reponsible for protecting stock-market investors from unscrupulous companies who try to deceive the stockholders, or who try to manipulate the marketplace for the benefit of insider traders.

As far as the morality, ethics or (most relevant) the legality of the tarrifs that a communication company charges and their reasons for doing so, I think that falls within the bailiwick of the FCC.

Re:They just never quit

[Belseth]

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.

I totally agree and I'd go a step further, I wonder if it breaches parts of the Richo Act. It definately reeks of mob extortion. It's sad that most big businesses reactions to something new is how can we corrupt it to make a buck. Another one got quietly passed that crippled organic food standards so big business can make money off this lucritive market. I remember when it first got big the top suppliers asked exactly how much pesticide can they use and still call it organic. Well the government finally gave them an answer. They didn't totally cut the heart out but they have left the term organic basically meaningless. Little things like antibiotics and artificial feed can be used on calves so long as they are fed organic before they are butchered. Why it's crime is people are paying a premium for organic foods. The true organic farmers won't be able to compete head to head with the ones cheating. A similar thing will happen here in that people won't realize that the smaller suppliers are being squeezed out. It's yet another sign the wild west days of the internet are coming to a close and it'll wind up eventually another corrupt tool of big business. Enough of the good will remain so most people won't complain but in 20 years the net as it's known today won't exist. It's already more about advertising and sales than content. Spam blew past regular e-mail a while ago and that doesn't include all the advertising. I always say if you want to kill spam and flashing pop up ads never buy what they are selling. If everyone does that the ads will fail and they will disappear. It's the 1% dumb enough to buy from them that keeps the rest of us in misery.

Would this not void common carrier status?

[cayenne8]

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?

Control-V, Control-C, *click*

[everphilski]

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-

Rotten companies lose eventually...

[rocjoe71]

...BellSouth could try, but then Google lights up all their dark fiber and take themselves OUT of BellSouth's market altogether, leaving BellSouth to explain to their customers why they should keep paying for a service that doesn't give them easy access to the most popular search engine on the net.

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.

Too many factors

[ziggyboy]

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.

Re:Enough with the strawmen

[ewhac]

If this were a question of individual ISPs -- Speakeasy versus AOL versus Netcom versus Verio -- then your rebuttal might have validity. However, this is BellSouth talking -- the ILEC, the "natural monopoly." The guys who own the wires no matter which ISP you go to. Seen in this light, Taco's analogy is valid.

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

Naturally

[max born]

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.

Current dodgy Bellsouth practices

[Dr_Ish]

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.