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

[halltk1983]

hmm... as a side thought... this would make Skype and VoIP useless... maybe that's how they're going to maintain their regional monopolies?

Re:They just never quit

[timster]

That would be awesome.

"Attention please, this is your captain speaking. We're going to be delayed as there is heavy traffic at our destination airport and it will take another half hour for us to get permission to land. First class customers, please proceed to the skydiving hatch; you will be landing by parachute in 5 minutes. Please remember that you are allowed to use cell phones during the descent, but be careful not to drop them when your chute deploys. Thank you."

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

[rossifer]

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

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?

They will fail

[Profane MuthaFucka]

Bell South is damaged. Adjust your routing tables accordingly.

Except..

[LWATCDR]

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.

Go ahead, be liable for it

[Red Flayer]

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.

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.

Idiot doesn't even know who his customer is

[jmorris42]

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.

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

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.

Can you say "Akamai?"

[Spazmania]

A traffic prioitization service already exists. It's Akamai's whole business model: They buy pipes to strategic locations with many service providers, cache servers near the customer and route requests to the best-choice server. You buy space on their servers and your data gets to the customer faster.

What Mr Smith wants to do is, well, asinine. He wants to allow the data pipes on his network to fill to 100% and then prioritize the traffic based on who pays. This suggests such a flawed understanding of the technology that as the chief technology officer, he should be fired.

See, here's the problem: For a router to make a priority-based switching decision between packets, it has to have more than one packet cached in memory waiting for free space in the outgoing pipe. But, if you havn't started transmitting the first packet by the time the second packet finishes arriving then you've already lost the speed game. Fast service means that you don't hold on to the packets. You send them out the next link as soon as you get them. Any other architecture would result in transmission speeds that are two to three times slower, even for the highest priority packets! Duh!

So if you don't want your network to suck rocks, you still have to keep the utilization below 80%, and if you keep the utilization down then except for rare bursts of traffic the prioritization function will never be used.

As a search engine, why on earth would I buy priority on your network knowing that either A) it almost never gets used or B) your network is piss slow either way? Answer: I wouldn't.

Fire Mr. Smith. He doesn't understand the technology he's charged with overseeing.