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 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?
What was that story not so long ago about Google buying up dark fiber everywhere?