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.
I stop using telco-DSL (not that I do, but many people do). This is a bad thing to happen - eventually the telco's will start blocking ISPs who tell them to F off. I am hoping a telco will do something stupid like block Microsoft, Google, yahoo, Ebay, Amazon...block one of the big names and watch how half your business goes down the chute. And let's not forget, this is absolutely ridiculous - the website I go to is not using the telco's lines, I am using telco's lines to retrieve the information...it is like asking my mom to pay for a phone call when I call her - absolutely stupid.
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
I have already paid for an IP address at a given speed. Anything that screws around with any of my third party dealings (ie Google, Yahoo, eBay, etc.) is theft of service, IMO.
If something like this goes through, these greedy bastards should lose their common carrier status since they are controlling the types of traffic going through their networks. I, for one, welcome the combined forces of the RIAA, MPAA, FBI & DHS permanently shutting down any ISP that slips up even one bit and allows something illegal to go through their system.
Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
Capitalism is about competing, yes. But even in a society of competitors, there has to be some degree of cooperation. Imagine if Ford owned some highways, Chevy others, and GM still others; still other highways were owned by the Japanese automakers, and others by the Germans.
You could drive a Ford car on a Ford highway for a reasonable rate (say, $2). However, if the highway you wanted to take was owned by Chevy or GM, you'd be price-gouged (say, $25).
That is what they're trying to do to the Internet. Is this "capitalism", or is this simply "unfair to everyone but the corporate executives and wealthy investors who will profit from it"?
The Internet, like the road system, should be open to everyone for the same rates. Yes, that means that sometimes Company A will have to carry Company B's packets. Tough titty for Company A. Company B has to do the same. And we all win.
Not everything in life is about competing. Christ, I swear that there are some capitalists who'd love to license and market the very air we breathe. (Druuge, anyone?)
With spending like this, exactly what are "conservatives" conserving?
I wonder if this may finally end up helping retail stores compete with online stores. Online stores do not have to pay for rent on a main highway, or sales tax in most cases. They get product placement for free (almost), while actual retail stores have to pay to have their store location in a busily trafficked area.
I am the president of a very small internet based company, but while I know something like this will hurt my company I can see why it is a legitimate problem that probably should be fixed. 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?
--
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
What was that story not so long ago about Google buying up dark fiber everywhere?
Yes, the users are, but the telcos want more. That seemed to be the gist of the article.
Imagine I'm AT&T. For a fee, I'll give priority to traffic to/from your website over that of competitors. The endi user get's to your site fast, and since Americans are impatient, the theory is that consumers will stop going to your competitors and go more to your site. Then your competitors pay the fee. And so on...
From an end-user standpoint, we've become accustomed to an internet that doesn't prioritize traffic. However, I don't think that will have a huge impact as the regulators determine the new rules. People will whine about this, but in the end the telcos will get what they want, the consumer will get screwed, and it will stay that way.
I look at the latest merger between AT&T and SBC and think "Wait a minute, did AT&T get broke up in the 80's? Now it's comming back toether. How does that work?"
"Give a woman two glasses of wine and some pad thai, and they'll agree to just about anything." the Sports Guy
Because the analogy is a bit flawed. This is more a case of me traveling to where a business is located. Once I leave my house, there are many different routes I can take to get there. The telco proposal is that if I want to go to a business they have a deal with, I get to use the highway. Otherwise, I can take the back roads through the industrial park. And I don't get to choose, because the telco owns the roads, and they'll route me along as they see fit. This despite the fact that both the business and I have already paid for the roads.
It's crap.
How is this not racketeering?
Telco: Have we got a deal for!
WebSite: Let's hear it.
Telco: If you pay us $X per month, we won't limit our customers access to your website.
WebSite: <sarcasm>Wow! That sounds like a great deal</sarcasm>
Now, imagine this with the mafia and a Small Business Owner (SBO)
Mafia: Have we got a deal for you!
SBO: Let's here it.
Mafia: If you pay us $X per month, we won't break your customer's knees with a baseball bat.
SBO: <sarcasm>Wow! That sounds like a great deal</sarcasm>
Whoosh. SMACK! (knees crack) AAAaaauughhh!
Anywho, that's just my simplified version of reality, but it does make sense. Telcos and the cable companies dipped their toes into blocking ports (TCP-25 anyone?) in the name of preventing spam. They're already performing traffic shaping so they can make more money on "business" accounts (more bandwithd for more money). I guess they feel they can now work this same scenario from the other end since they have met so little resistance in the two previous cases.
Have we dug our own grave with this one by not pipping up earlier? Is silence in the previous cases the same as conset. The telcos and cable companies seem to think so.