Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

BellSouth Wants to Rig the Internet

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the you-gotta-hope-this-is-fake dept.

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?'

8 of 559 comments (clear)

  1. They just never quit by SilverspurG · · Score: 5, Interesting
    "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!
    --
    fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
    1. Re:They just never quit by ergo98 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    2. Re:They just never quit by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    3. Re:They just never quit by ClickOnThis · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
  2. Would this not void common carrier status? by cayenne8 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.........
  3. Rotten companies lose eventually... by rocjoe71 · · Score: 5, Interesting
    ...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.

    --
    Height: 38U, Weight: 0 Newtons, Eyes: #0000FF, OS: Gray Matter 1.0 (Alpha)
  4. Re:Enough with the strawmen by ewhac · · Score: 5, Interesting
    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

    --
    Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
  5. Current dodgy Bellsouth practices by Dr_Ish · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.