Slashdot Mirror
Telcos Propose 2-Tier Internet
cshirky writes "Boston.com is reporting that 'AT&T Inc. and BellSouth Corp. are lobbying Capitol Hill for the right to create a two-tiered Internet, where the telecom carriers' own Internet services would be transmitted faster and more efficiently than those of their competitors.' The telcos basic fear, of course, is that the end to end design of the net (PDF version) will erode the telcos ability to use service charges to generate revenue for delivering video and voice; the proposed solution is to break end-to-end in order to protect pricing leverage over the users." We reported on this at the beginning of the month, when it was just speculation. Not any more.
I admit to being a bit too young to remember the original, but maybe it's time for another breakup similar to the original Bell? Seems the current ones have gotten a bit too monopolistic, IMHO...
Does this fall under the heading of "If we ask permission, it's not illegal anymore?"
Wouldn't this go against the common carrier provisions? Wouldn't this sort of filtering and degrading things that they choose open them up to liability in other areas like P2P sharing that happens on their networks?
So they want to break the internet to make more money for themselves?
Will anyone actually go for this?
Seriously, what ever happened to running a business on the merits of its product, not on cash generated by hidden surcharges?
not like anyone reading this doesn't know already, but this would be the worst thing ever to happen to the internet. if you think they would stop by offering crap connections for competitors, you're blind. things like /. would be low priorities since they love to expose what big bells are doing to screw us.
-- lol pwned
Hmm, maybe we need to send these telcos over to World of Ends and remind them that the end-to-end or "dumb" nature of the Internet (in the sense that all the logic is handled at each end, not in the middle) is a big part of what's made it successful.
Not that that's ever stopped anyone from killing the goose that lays the golden eggs, of course...
Google is fighting the proposal, along with other large Internet companies including Amazon.com Inc. and eBay Inc. They fear they may have to pay telecoms millions of dollars to gain access to customers who use the premium Internet services. In addition, they argue, many small Internet start-ups would be unable to pay the fees, which could reduce consumer choice.
Ma' Bell strikes back!
It confuses me as to why Congress should have any say in companies creating additional networks. Interstate commerce clause? What a joke.
If companies want to try to create supernets for their customers to better access each other, I say allow them to. I can not imagine any supernet subverting the Internet in any way. If an ISP decides to slow down traffic to non-ISP destinations, you're going to see user backlash. I've changed ISPs over the years due to bad routing (or repeatedly failed routing) and I know some of my non-techie friends have done the same.
These supernets would just be a second backbone connecting their network together, correct? I think this is a great idea, especially for corporations that can not afford their own backbone connections for remote offices. If my companies could connect quickly through a secondary network at no additional cost (or lower cost), I'd jump on it immediately.
I just can't understand why Congress has any say in what companies do with their own property. They're already providing for the "public need" and they should be free to supplement the "public need" for what other users are demanding/needing.
Wouldn't this automatically end their common carrier status, if they're filtering blocking traffic from certain sources to certain destinations? Or is that something they hope the law they're lobbying for to address? The Telecommunications Cake Eating and Having Antiterrorism and Freedom Act of 2006!
This means that common carriers will be essentially committing fraud.
If for example, I get a T1 from Verizon (I would never buy from them directly, we're going with an alternate provider, but hear me out) and AT&T has a dispute with Verizon. Were this thing to pass, data transfers between my T-1 and a customer's T1 (who happens to be an AT&T provider) would be downgraded. This means that my customer is not getting the full 1.54mbps bandwidth their SLA guarantees, and by effect neither would I. This is {potentially} interference with interstate commerce and is also discriminatory in deciding whose traffic goes where, not to mention breach of contract (violating the SLA).
Implementing this kind of policy should immediately result in the provider's losing common carrier status, as by advertising one thing and then providing a different service, they are carrying out a bait-and-switch on the customer - in short, fraud.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
This has the potential to turn the Internet into a huge mess, especially as the telecoms continue to consolidate. I hope that Congress is not going to implement this. At least we have Google, Amazon, Ebay and Microsoft sticking up for us, because we all know that their interests are much more pure.
For one thing, it would require a radical change in how the internet currently works. TCP/IP was designed around the whole idea of having no central routing (note, I didn't say naming) authority. This is one of the features which make it resilient to damage, since the network can adapt to nodes which suddenly might go dark.
This, after all, was the whole purpose of it, since ARPANET was intended to be resilient to enemy attack if parts of it were taken out.
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
"AT&T Inc. and BellSouth Corp. are lobbying Capitol Hill..." ...But our politicians are elected to best represent the needs of their constituents (and we all voted, right?), so everything will work out just fine in the best interest of the individual citizen.
Whew. That was a close one.
--- witty signature
Just another example of greed? This is directly comparable to them being allowed to degrade voice service from another phone company. Its ridiculous for voice its ridiculous for the internet. See what happens when you stop considering them to be common-carriers where everyone is on a level playing field? It will lead to no good, thats for sure.
Pete/Petri "damn, my chainsaw is clogged with 1's and 0's again." --clyde
I'm not a fan of this proposal, but I'm curious what the real difference is between this and Internet2 connectivity that get people so incensed? Universities and corporations on Internet2 get higher bandwidth to each other than the rest of the internet, and for that they pay a premium.
It seems to me that the major difference is that it's the telcos coming up with the idea and that end users may actually get to use it. While I'd prefer everyone get access to the higher speed network, what's stopping backbone providers from continuing to upgrade services as they have been?
This seems quite a bit different than previous stories about telcos offering priority on the regular internet to services that pay up. That would definitely be questionable. This is using a completely separate network that they own and charge access to - why shouldn't they be allowed to do this?
This is an old issue - Lessig has been writing about it since 2001.
The idea pops up every few months, but in the end, it is economic suicide for a market that already has an open, neutral standard to splinter into a set of closed, preferential standards.
In short, the competition between providers will reduce their profit below the current 'tacit agreement' point it is currently at, thanks to the neutral standard. This is especially true as long as they are not offering any additional value with their service, and only destroying the value of the current network effects.
The economically feasible solution is to price discriminate (as much as existing customers hate it, it does reduce deadweight loss and increase revenue). Simply, charge by bandwidth provided, and charge less for 'preferred' types of bandwidth, such as traffic internal to their network.
[Recommended Reading: The Innovator's Solution (which addresses closed vs. open standards) and anything about Nash-Bridges Equilibrium (which addresses tacit agreement among competing parties).]
They have their own private internet for video services and a separate internet for normal IP traffic flow.
This allows them to send massive amounts of video with fairly reliable QOS.
I'm making my own internet!
I've got a spare linksys and two pringles cans; who's with me?
Does this mean if I want a better Internet, I now really will have to go to AOL? NOOOOOOO!
Common Carrier status is granted when the provider doesn't filter content. However misguided this attempt is, it does not violate common carrier status, because they are not passing judgement or denying certain content. They're still allowing it all, albeit at different levels of service.
And making it law is what they are trying to do.
Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgement.
- W. Wriston, former Citibank CEO
Sounds like we're pretty much there...
http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/index.p hp/Fascism
Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and several Latin American regimes. Britt found 14 defining characteristics common to each:
1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.
4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.
5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.
6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.
7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.
9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.
10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.
Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
The article mostly talks about the telcos trying to offer Video services at a "premium" to subscribers, not much else. This way they can take a huge chunk of the next-gen Video-over-IP market, by having better quality videos (and most likely live video feeds) over their network. How they would stop video.google.com if Google decides to up the ante and offer H.264 quality videos is beyong me... that would probably be illegal.
So basically they are asking Congress to let them bundle a Video & Internet in one package sans the legal troubles. In my opinion, Verizon (a TELCO) is already doing something like that with their FiOS service (Broadband + Video), although in limited areas.
Mozilla stole tabs from NetCaptor. So what? Right?
No single company has the money to invest or support a seperate Internet over the long run. There are too many ISPs and backbone providers competing in the open market.
You misunderstand the issue.
This is not about creating a separate internet. This is about giving some packets priority over others in a single transport - and the regulated transport operator being able to assign their OWN packets to the higher priority - and to include others' packets for an extra fee, when contracted to do so.
No "second network" creation at all. Just first-class and coach-class packets. (Actually: Packets with confirmed reservations and packets "flying standby" or in "overbooked seating".)
This sounds unfair. But actually, it's an economic necessity to enable a technical necessity.
Normally, IP packets get best effort service. They're forwarded if there's bandwidth for them. But when there's a traffic jam packets are randomly picked to be dropped.
This works FINE when there's lots more transport available than packets to use it. And for things like file transfers and terminal sessions it's still OK when things get tight: The TCP layer sits on top of IP, detecting the lost packets, retrying them, and throttling back until traffic flows smoothly through the traffic jam. Your data gets through - but slowed down to fairly "share the road".
But for real-time things like real-time voice and video, retry takes too long, causing stops-and-starts, stuttering, echos, and a host of quality issues. (Even the delay necessary to insert slop to handle the hole-filling is a horrible problem in two-way communication.) Yet not retrying makes holes in the stream that have to be filled in by guess - and losing information when too many packets are dropped.
IP had hooks to let you flag packets for special handling when needed. (They're the Type of Service (ToS) bits - intended to indicate what aspects of scheduling are important to the packets, intended to be mapped into Quality of Service (QoS) - how the scheduling decisions are made.)
But protocol stacks have already cheated. (Notably Microsoft, which released an IP stack that improved its own performance by lying about the traffic's requirements - giving its packets priority over others that were more truthful.) With many cheaters deployed the ISPs and backbones just don't honor the ToS bits, or rewrite them at their own edges - to their own specs - when they do. (Thus, now that Microsoft wants to get into VoIP they find their past behavior hosed themselves. B-) And everybody else. B-( ) But even if ToS were honored and used honorably, there are no guarantees. So too many calls through a network node and they'd all deteriorate.
Telcos write service contracts that guarantee performance levels for their phone calls - or for customers (like radio and television networks) that require reliable transport. High probability of establishing a connection (for dynamic things like phone calls), still higher performance guarantees once one is established. If they want to turn the call into packets and ship it over a shared IP backbone while still meeting the guarantees, the VoIP / stream packets themselves must have guarantees higher than "best effort". In particular they require virtual certainty of delivery and tight control of transit time variations. That means they must have higher priority than the competing packets that are doing less time-critical stuff (such as file transfer). Fortunately, VoIP streams are low and essentially constant bandwidth, so they can just reserve a tiny fraction of the bandwidth for them. (Video streams are 'way bigger - but not as transient. So you can design in bandwidth for them.)
But if some packets are given priority over others, they have higher claim on system resources. They can bump other traffic. So it's appropriate to charge them extra for the privilege. (It's the same case as flying with a confirmed reservation vs. standby.) The bandwidth on the network l
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way