Slashdot Mirror
The Future of e-Commerce and e-Information?
An anonymous reader writes "The Washington Post has an interesting article on what they label 'The Coming Tug of War Over the Internet. From the article: 'Do you prefer to search for information online with Google or Yahoo? What about bargain shopping -- do you go to Amazon or eBay? Many of us make these kinds of decisions several times a day, based on who knows what -- maybe you don't like bidding, or maybe Google's clean white search page suits you better than Yahoo's colorful clutter. But the nation's largest telephone companies have a new business plan, and if it comes to pass you may one day discover that Yahoo suddenly responds much faster to your inquiries, overriding your affinity for Google. Or that Amazon's Web site seems sluggish compared with eBay's.'" Seems like the idea of the 2-tier internet is really catching on with the market-droids.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10912575/
By having one of the largest lobbying efforts of any company around. So, start the PR offensive right before your coporate wine-swilling legislators step up to defend those poor, down-trodden ISP's carrying the load for those freeloading media companies.
Maybe this will be another another opportunity for Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), the great defender of the common man (if that common man happens to be a Fortune 100 company needing sweetheart legislation) to rush to the defense of his constituents.
http://www.opensecrets.org/payback/issue.asp?iss ueid=BA3&congno=109
That's basically the same approach RIAA took. Seems to be becoming the industry model. Heavy lobbying, PR push, profit!!!
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Entertaining...
In 1998 BBN Planet had the same whinge about Exodus. It even stopped their peering with them. It did not last. Users demanded it being turned back on and it got turned back on.
Even more entertaining....
Since 1997 a large portion of the non-US Internet has been using QoS. Been there, done that myself. The world did not end from traffic being prioritised, limited and otherwise bastardised left right and center. It continues to be bastardized and this is posted across a bastardization like this. It has gone through. There were cases where idiots tried to use this otherwise beneficial tool to extract more commercial advantage out of the network or their market position. They are now all bankrupt and their assets are broken down and sold around. There is a limit to the gain possible here after which users start to leave for other ISPs.
Super entertaining....
ATT has been running diffserv for god knows how long. In fact it is the only ISP that used to state as policy that it will honour an incoming diffserve markings(dunno if they still do). It is phenomenally entertaining to observe the fact that the knowledge about this has reached a PHB somewhere up there. He should be congratulated on finally understanding some of the technology behind his network about which engineers have been speaking for the last several years.
Whatever... Move along... Nothing new here...
If they wall off content completely the users will eat their arse. If they drop it under some SLAs the content owners will once eat their arse. The reason has nothing to do with common carrier. Nearly all content providers are directly connected to Tier 1 networks in the US. There are no public peerings left. It is essentially negotiated transit and there are legally binding contracts to slap an overly inventive BellDroid across the wrists. And if a content provider does not have a good transit manager it is their fault. It is a part of doing business in the US. This is the same as running a garage without a good mechanic.
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
This seams to me that it is the internet's version of "buying real estate". Ma-and-Pa stores already have to do it, why not internet companies?
Because it's not the same type of business. If Ma and Pa want to enjoy more sales to people all over the country/world, then they can also register a domain name at GoDaddy for a few dollars, find some $10/month hosting, and have their grandkid create a web site.
Oops! Apparently running a real business on line includes paying professional content people, paying for real hosting, marketing, shipping, warehousing, fraud management, numerous returns, correspondence and phone calls 24x7, language barriers, and enormous competition. You make it sound like the person with the walk-up store is the only one that has competition or overhead.
Further, if Ma and Pa actually do rent out a store on the side of a busy road, they've got something that no Amazon or eBay or any large e-tailer can provided: instant convenience and fulfillment of physical wares.
Did you have the same concerns when mail order catalogs really started to hit it big 15, 20 years ago? It's no different, except that a small retailer doesn't have to commit to a huge printing/postage expense to get a web site out in front of millions of people. Ma and Pa should get online, or Ma and Pa should fine-tune their business around the things that make walking physically into a store preferable over looking at digital pictures, paying for freight, waiting for delivery, and possibly being disappointed with the purchase. Oh: and you don't really think that online stores don't have to pay taxes, do you? The larger retailers have business presences in multiple states, and collect/remit sales tax in every one of them.
If Ma and Pa are worried that someone in their own state might turn to an out-of-state online store to buy something, tax-free, and have it shipped into Ma and Pa's home turf, then they have to remember that they could be putting up their own dot-com, and shipping to that same in-state person for next day delivery by simple ground service. Localized marketing of a web stores is easier than it's ever been (thanks, Google), so there's really no excuse. If a direct competitor of Ma and Pa's moved in right across the street, they'd have to spend money, change what they're doing, and innovate in order to compete and stay afloat. This is no different.
Of course, none of this is what the referenced article is actually about (favored connection speed for favored deal makers), but I couldn't let your comment go without making some points.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
The Internet, like the road system, should be open to everyone for the same rates.
I guess you didn't get the memo
Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
The cash cow for telcos is not being an ISP. The cash cow is long distance phone charges. And given that "long distance" can be as close as 10 miles....
But VOIP will kill that cow stone dead. And the telcos want to make sure that won't happen.
Nothing much new here it's typical telco thinking. The're used to running large and hugely complex networks (e.g. GSM) with tightly controlled and metered access.
If operators had designed the Internet then searching would be a network function controlled by the them and the concept of multiple search engines would seem strange. But then so woulld using the Internet as the terrifying usage charges would have stalled it way back. Adding a service to the network would take a committee of committees several years (e.g. MMS messaging).
If they don't understand that bandwidth is now a commodity then they could be in for a few serious shocks, unless they can buy the necessary laws to keep out small local competition (they already have in some countries).
There's still money to be made by Telcos as running reliable networks isn't a doddle. I don't think it lies in blackmailing those who build the services that make Internet access desirable in the first place.
Ame
The Telcos are no longer a government granted monopoly. In fact the government broke up a "monopoly" into the "baby bells". But that's beside the point, the phone companies have to compete with each other and are REQUIRED to share their lines... but not for free.
It's interesting: when the government forced them to divest into several small regional companies; "competative" market forces fought it out (with major scandals asside... MCI) to give us a bunch of mergers back into a few large companies.
Yes, we are. And what's more... we are paying for these pipes in order to get to Google and Yahoo and Vonage, and without those we'd have zero reason to give our money to AT&T. Ok, Google, etc. are standing in for content providers in general... I know that so long as there is internet porn people will be willing to pay for broadband, but that's all content. Also it's not true that the content providers don't pay... they also need Internet connectivity, and as those of us who've tried running commercial websites know that doesn't come cheap.
/do/ have fiber out there.
:j
So what the Telcos really want is for everybody to pay... and then for them all to pay again. Who wants a free ride here?
But that's to be expected... they are corporations and as such have only one objective and that's to maximize their profits (excuse me, shareholder value). And since the government has let them rebuild their monopolies they seem to have the means to do that. Or do they?
Google for one isn't waiting for them. It's been mentioned in the news several times in the last year that Google has been buying dark fiber. So Ed is wrong... they (or some of them)
I'm not worried. Yes, the Telcos have nearly rebuilt their monopoly. But it's a far weaker monopoly than it ever was in the past. There is just too much fiber in the ground, and too many alternatives out there... if someone squeezes too hard, the market WILL work. The Internet will not be hijacked by a few big corporations; it's against the interests of too many other big corporations for that to happen.