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.

12 of 187 comments (clear)

  1. Small question: by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 4, Insightful

    From TFA:
    In a November Business Week story, AT&T Chairman Edward E. Whitacre Jr. complained that Internet content providers were getting a free ride: "They don't have any fiber out there. They don't have any wires. . . . They use my lines for free -- and that's bull," he said. "For a Google or a Yahoo or a Vonage or anybody to expect to use these pipes for free is nuts!''
    Perhaps I'm missing the point here, but aren't the end users paying for these pipes? I know I'm certainly paying enough for mine...
    --
    ____

    ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

  2. Eminent Domain by Billosaur · · Score: 5, Insightful

    From The Washington Post: The Republican-led Congress is struggling with the issue. On one hand, it has taken a deregulatory approach to the Internet, but on the other, it can't ignore the concerns of Google, Yahoo and eBay, some of the most successful companies of the last 10 years. These companies alone have built up businesses worth hundreds of billions of dollars on an unfettered Internet. Moreover, unfettered Internet access has come to be seen by Americans in general as not just a privilege or a product, but a right akin to free speech and free association.

    It comes down to who you think is more important: companies like AT&T, BellSouth, etc. that provide a connection to the Internet, or Google, Yahoo, etc. that provide the content that cause people to want to have an Internet connection in the first place.

    Personally, I think this is sour grapes by the telecoms, because they didn't think to invest in the content side of things. Let's face it, one share of Google's stock is worth one share of each of theirs combined and then some.

    If I'm Congress, I threaten to nationalize the Internet, specifically its infrastructure and connectivity. Tell them the Federal Government now owns the trunks and fiber and they can bid on a contract for maintenance of the whole thing. Thorw some billions their way as "compensation." They'll change their tune in a hurry lest the lose their steady income.

    --
    GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
    1. Re:Eminent Domain by Glock27 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      It comes down to who you think is more important: companies like AT&T, BellSouth, etc. that provide a connection to the Internet, or Google, Yahoo, etc. that provide the content that cause people to want to have an Internet connection in the first place.

      Personally, I think this is sour grapes by the telecoms, because they didn't think to invest in the content side of things. Let's face it, one share of Google's stock is worth one share of each of theirs combined and then some.

      It's not "sour grapes". It's "rampant greed". The telecoms are already (or should be if they're competent) turning a profit on the ISP side of things. They get a shiny new income stream of $40-$80 per house that signs up for DSL. That isn't peanuts, that probably averages $600 a year with a target audience of around 100 million households. That's right, if a company managed to sign up 10% of US households, it'd have around a $6 billion annual income stream.

      The greedy jerks (who probably received fat government subsidies to install the infrastructure in the first place) simply see an opportunity to charge on both ends of the deal. They don't care if they wreck the Internet in the process.

      This needs to be fought.

      --
      Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
      Score: -1 100% Flamebait
  3. Death! by Glock27 · · Score: 3, Insightful
    To the marketroids...

    This is the stupidest idea ever and will receive the warm welcome it deserves.

    It is the same idea as making TVs that receive certain stations better than others. "What do you think dear, should we get a Sony?" "No, let's get a Toshiba, I want CBS to come in clear and last year Sony made that deal with MSNBC..."

    Brilliant thinking.

    Capitalism will certainly fix this (non) problem.

    --
    Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
    Score: -1 100% Flamebait
  4. You want more money? by AviLazar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Meanwhile, on the other side, companies like AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth are lobbying just as hard, saying that they need to find new ways to pay for the expense of building faster, better communication networks. And, they add, because these new networks will compete with those belonging to Comcast, Time Warner and oth er cable companies -- which currently have about

    Here is a suggestion - offer me the same speeds U/D'l that comcast offers, at the same convenience (no I do not want to have to log-on, I want to play and play). Offer this at a cheaper price, or offer faster speeds at the same price. Offer me better service. Do these things and you will have my business - do it not, and go fuck yourselves! I use comcast, yea I pay more, but you know what - i get 3 times the speed of verizon DSL - and for a programmer/web designer that is important.

    And then, with your lack of service, you dare complain you are losing out? And you think you have the right to charge the content providers? They are not the ones requesting to send their information over the net, I am going to them requesting the information...I paid already, i shouldn't have to pay again - and yes I will have to pay again as Yahoo decides to charge me for email.

    --

    I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
  5. Scary by Quixote · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I don't know what is more scary: the fact that these companies are thinking along these lines, or the fact that our representatives in Congress are so clueless that they haven't done anything about it. I mean, this is a no-brainer. Any sane person would tell the Telecomms to fuck off.

  6. Re:OR by dasil003 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Just like the music industry, the telcos better wise up. This whole phenomenon of creating markets out of thin air, and boosting profits by price manipulation rather than innovation is a serious threat to our economy. Only in a first-world country like America do we forget that an economy is supposed to represent some actual goods and services. This is exactly why China will surpass us, because we've got so much money that everyone's trying to scam a piece of the pie without actually doing anything.

    Unfortunately it's inevitable that big companies will be too slow to adapt to an evolving economy, and they will push their bulk around trying to grab as much profit as possible before hitting the mat. That would be all fine and good if they didn't also control the government in the absence of a cohesive counter-interest.

  7. Re:OR by sosume · · Score: 3, Insightful

    When this happens, content providers will have to begin rolling out custom Wimax networks. If you cannot reach Google very fast through YaHooFi, but you can through GoogliFi, which in its turn blocks Msn.

    It won't be long until the pc owners will combine their own Wimax access points and form a completely free unwired network. This is inevitable.

  8. Re:Capitalism by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is capitalism on the internet at its finest.

    Telecoms are public utilities. This is not capitalism at all, it is the abuse of a government granted monopoly.

    Kinda funny how that other government granted monopoly, copyright, is also being used to attack the usefulness of the internet. Perhaps there is a pattern here.

    --
    When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  9. Re:Capitalism by CmdrGravy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Clearly any price increases faced by businesses will be met by corresponding price increases for those businesses customers. For example Amazon would have to charge you more for their products if they wanted to use this prioritised system and Yahoo/Google would have to charge more for adverts which would in turn be paid for by increases in the prices of the advertised products.

    Really the only winner in this is the Telco with everyone else ending up paying more for much the same level of service ( I suspect that rather than their customers seeing any great increases in network speed you would see people who weren't paying for this scheme to suffer decreased network speed ).

    The best bet would be for no company to sign up to the improved service but this it's probably optomistic to hope this would happen.

  10. Countermeasures to 2-teir by G4from128k · · Score: 3, Insightful
    I can see several countermeasures to this development. The key is that the site owner can tell which ISP is stifling the traffic or extorting extra speed payments and change elements of their site to reflect that ISP's unpleasant behavior. For any traffic coming from a Bell South or other 2-tier "badISP" customer:
    1. Publish BadISP's tech support numbers: "If you are having trouble with this site call 1-800-BadISP" -- at about $5-$10 per call, the telco would soon see the folly of its ways.
    2. Publicize BadISPs performance issues: "This site optimized for BadISP competitors" and provide links to non-2-tier competitors.
    3. Post higher prices for BadISP customers: iTunes for $1.09 per song to BadISP customers to pay for "faster" service.

    Creating a 2-tier internet is hardly anonymous and site owner can easily inform end-users of misbehavior.
    --
    Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
  11. Re:Americentric by PhoenixFlare · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Americentric

    A story on an American-run website writen by an American paper about American companies lobbying the American government....Imagine that!