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.

Comments

Re:Americentric

[plague3106]

Does that mean the companies in your country would not try something similar?

OR

[AviLazar]

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.

Re:OR

[dasil003]

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.

Re:OR

[sosume]

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.

Re:OR

[AviLazar]

In the end, the people who will be paying these extra fee's are the users - and probably more (hey if I use twenty website services I will have to pay for twenty sites who now have inflated costs). What BellSouth and the rest shoudl really do is tell their customers "we are raising your rates"...They won't because they will lose more customers to cable internet providers - who althought charge more, offer speeds that are two-five times as fast if not more.

I find it amazing (in a good way) that google is saying "hey if we have to pay, we can afford to, but it is the little upstart guy who won't be able to pay and that sucks"...Congress needs to listen to that - when the big guy says they want the competition.

Re:OR

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

it is like asking my mom to pay for a phone call when I call her - absolutely stupid.

You mean, like when you call her on her cell phone?

Re:OR

[AviLazar]

You mean, like when you call her on her cell phone?

I knew someone would mention that, but that is not applicable.

First, even as the telco's admitted the content providers do pay them for access to the net already. Also, let us say I have cingular and my mom has verizon - Cingular does not charge my mom for the call, verizon charges her per her agreement. In this model - that BellSouth is proposing, Cingular would charge my mom to be able to have a better (well faster speed) conversation with me. Why does Cingular get to charge my mom for a phone call? She didn't sign an agreement with them. And frankly, i pay Cingular for the right to use their lines to call whomever I please.

Re:OR

[Erwos]

Doesn't thise sort of assume that WiMax is on a non-licensed spectrum? IIRC, WiMax is going to be operating on a licensed spectrum...

-Erwos

Re:OR

[Maclir]

When I was living in Australia, I had a cell phone. I didn't pay for incoming calls. I paid a monthly fee, which included so many "minutes" of outgoing calls, and I paid for outgoing calls that exceeded that allowance. I rarely paid more than $15 a month.

In Australia, the rate to call a cell (mobile) phone number is higher than the rate to call a landline number.

That's why I refuse to have a cell phone in the US - the phone companies want to rape me blind - the old BOHICA story.

Re:OR

[TwinkieStix]

Congress isn't the answer here. Supply and demand is good enough. There will always be an ISP willing to supply cheap fast bandwidth regardless of what dumber comapnies do. The worst case isn't the horrible future everybody seems to foresee, rather it's simply a split between smart and uninformed shoppers. This is similar to the AOL users who page $20+ for a $10 service. Many users, and eventually most users I think, will eventually see ratings of ISPs based on latency and bandwidth. Our money will go to the best service, and those that try to hurt us will simply loose market share (perhaps even going out of business).

As long as there are three wires (telephone, cable, fios) leading to my home (not to mention wireless/satellite and internet over power line) is around, I will always choose the best deal for me leaving the greediest to die.

Re:OR

[AviLazar]

Congress is the answer. It will not be supply and demand if it is written into law, and that is what the telco's are trying to do. Once they have the law behind them, they can do as they please. So yes, we need Congress to vote our way - against the telcos. This is not an issue about an ISP supplying cheap/fast service, it is about the telco's charging other isps - and in the end that charge will come down on us. This has nothing to do with things like AOL people surfing at 20/month for a 10/month service.

If this law gets passed, what will happen is the companies that can afford to pay the ISP charges (and thusly pass it to their clients - us) will get more market share because the clueless end user will say "hey google is faster then this new guy, so this new guy sucks" where in reality it is the fact the ISPs are favoring google because google can afford to pay. Oh, but in the end, as i said before - google is not paying - we are.

What will you do when the telcos get to regulate and charge the ISPs, then satellite gets to do this, and then cable gets to do this? We gotta stop it here or we are toast.

Re:OR

[DuckDuckBOOM!]

I find it amazing (in a good way) that google is saying "hey if we have to pay, we can afford to, but it is the little upstart guy who won't be able to pay and that sucks"...

Consider, also, that Google may be positioning itself to work around the telcos if they pull a stunt like that. No fools, they.

DDB

Re:OR

[lynx_user_abroad]

As long as there are three wires (telephone, cable, fios) leading to my home (not to mention wireless/satellite and internet over power line) is around, I will always choose the best deal for me leaving the greediest to die.

You've got three? Dang! Some guys have all the luck.

I live within commuting distance of a high-tech center, and all but the last 15 miles or so of my commute is through countryside where even dialtone is sometimes flaky.

I'm afraid some people still think in terms of "The Internet" as being a place you connect to, and once there, the world is at your doorstep. While I agree that's the world I want, and the would which would work best for us all, the story discusses the world from the point of view of the networking companies who own the fabric of that network.

Imagine a world, instead, where you choose an ISP and access plan based on the content they have access to, kinda like choosing a Satellite TV provider based on the channels they offer. If you want both Google and Amazon, then you need to subscribe to the GoldenInfoPlusCommerce package. If you want access to sites in the *.sex domain, then you need the AdultPremmium package add-on. Of course, you can subscribe to PlatinumWorks and get all those, plus posting privleges on your favorite (affiliated) blogs, too.

The alternative, of course, is for your favorite Mom and Pop ISP to try to run their own wires to Yahoo, AOL, Slashdot, etc, and so avoid paying the Incumbents to use their wires, but is that really going to be less expensive, if even fesible?

But what about wireless? Wherein there is either Licensed Spectrum wireless (satellite, cell-phone, WiMax, etc) where you'll still be paying someone to use something they own, or Unlicensed Spectrum wireless, (WiFi) wherein you can use as much bandwidth as you want for free, and so can everyone else, including all the Licensed Spectrum wireless bandwidth owners who have a vested interest in making sure you can't get any real value out of it.

Oh yeah, I almost forgot about Mesh Networking (wired or wireless) wherein you can get your internet fix from your friendly neighbor, so long as you don't mind sharing your bandwith to meet his { leftist communist pinko | right wing fanatical christian | child porn swapping | MPAA infringing | insert your own favorite bandwidth hog here } fix on an equal basis.

Welcome to Libretarian Hell.

We have a long way to go before everyone has three adequate pipes to their own home. I'm not saying it wouldn't work once we get there, but to date the only model we have of a network communication system which works is one where network netruality is maintained either through technological necessity, social agreement, or by law.

Re:OR

[MikeFM]

I agree. If the telcos fuck with the users to much someone will just come along and make a lot of money by supplying a better experience. In this day and age they can't rely on not having compitition. I'll switch from any telco that behaves in this way the same as I've switched for other misbehavior (such as charging by usage rather than unlimited or firewalling my access to certain ports). Do they really think that trying to blackmail companies like Google won't make it into the media? I can only imagine Google would put up a big nasty 'Why your connection sucks and what you can do about it!' link on all their sites.

Re:OR

[masdog]

A lot of networks are adding "free incoming minutes" to all their new plans. US Cellular has this, and I believe I just heard a commercial where Sprint/Nextel just added that feature as well.

Re:OR

[budgenator]

There will always be an ISP willing to supply cheap fast bandwidth regardless of what dumber comapnies do.
Except that ISP has to get bandwidth from someone, and the bandwidth is basicaly the telcos. Sooner or later it comes from the the telco's because they are the ones that run the backbones for the internet.

Capitalism

[PlayCleverFully]

Isn't this the basis of capitalism?
Competition creates better products with lower prices.
This is capitalism on the internet at its finest.

Re:Capitalism

[Caspian]

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?)

Re:Capitalism

[ranton]

The Internet, like the road system, should be open to everyone for the same rates

While in general I disagree with the Telcos on this situation, I do not think that this is a fair comparison. This isnt like charging people more for driving different cars on the highway. These price increases are for businesses, not consumers.

This is more like having to pay more to have your business store front on a busy part of a highway. To do that, you have to pay more. The highway access is free, but putting up a business on a busy part of it is not. Why should it be different for internet companys?

I am most playing devil's advocate here. I do not like this either, but I cannot really find a reason why the Telcos are doing anything wrong.

Re:Capitalism

[Guysmiley777]

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.

Genius! You're on to something here. Why should everyone have free use of the oxygen created by trees on privately owned land? I'm thinking an annual 'oxygen tax' for everyone on the planet that will payout to landowners based on how much forest they own. This is also the solution to global deforestation! Why slash and burn when you can kick back and let the cash roll in? (you know, just like welfare!)

Re:Capitalism

[SinceYouWas]

I am most playing devil's advocate here. I do not like this either, but I cannot really find a reason why the Telcos are doing anything wrong.

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.

Re:Capitalism

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

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.

Re:Capitalism

[CmdrGravy]

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.

Re:Capitalism

[Yvanhoe]

capitalism should be regarded as a tool, not as the founding principle of a society. Solidarity could be regarded as an example of a founding principle (and is in fact the founding principle of most human societies including USA).

Re:Capitalism

[ranton]

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

This is no different than paying for your business to be located on a major highway; I still do not see where the analogy falls apart. If you pay more money for real estate you will be in a better location. And then consumers are going to be led and "routed" to these businesses mostly because it is more convenient. They probably wont take the time to go through the back roads in an industrial park.

In the physical world both the businesses and consumers have paid taxes to use the roads, but the businesses still have to pay more to be located in "premium" spots.

--

Re:Capitalism

[ranton]

Clearly any price increases faced by businesses will be met by corresponding price increases for those businesses customers

Is this really such a bad thing? Internet companys already have plenty of unfair advantages over retail stores, this would only help balance the playing field. I work at an internet company, so this will hurt me as much as anyone, but I still do not see why it is unfair.

--

Re:Capitalism

[Intron]

The Internet, like the road system, should be open to everyone for the same rates.
I guess you didn't get the memo

Re:Capitalism

[roman_mir]

It's amazin that the AC grandparent is moded as Troll. He is RIGHT, goddamn it!

It is all about competition. However, if a telco was given public money to pull their cables, then public has reasonable expections to use these cables somehow.

On the other hand if a corporation put together a system of communications all on their own, I don't see how anyone can come over and force them into 'sharing'.

Re:Capitalism

[SinceYouWas]

This is no different than paying for your business to be located on a major highway; I still do not see where the analogy falls apart.

It falls apart thusly: Why do people pay more to be located on a major highway? Because there are many people passing by who can see their store, and because it's easy for people to get there and shop.

Now, suppose the town planners come to the business and says "Pay us extra, and we'll ensure that *everyone* from area X has easy access to your store, while driving to other stores will be more difficult (roads full of potholes, etc.)." Well, what if I live in area X, but I want to shop somewhere else? Too bad for me, because all I have is the access that my town planners (local telco) decides to give me.

Even here, you are missing the real point. The business has paid for access to the network. I have paid for access to the network. The telcos whining about "freeloaders" are lying, purely and simply. They are just looking for a reason to limit everyone's easy access to every site, because they see a business advantage in it. I am not paying to have my access 'customized' in a direction that they choose.

Re:Capitalism

[CmdrGravy]

It seems unfair to me because I don't believe there would any benefit to me with this new arrangement and yet I would be expected to pay for it anyway.

Maybe I am being cynical but I suspect the Telco's involved would provide a better and quicker network for those customers paying them for the new service by degrading everyone who isn't paying. If this is the case even if I am not benefitting from the improved access I can gain to Amazon for example I am experiencing a worse service from other sites I might use who would not be able to or wouldn't want to pay the Telcos extra money.

Re:Capitalism

[Caspian]

Your sort of capitalism-religionist thinking will (n.b.: I did not say "would") lead to 90+% of the Internet connections and hosts in the US being controlled by one company.

Re:Capitalism

[roman_mir]

Your sort of capitalism-religionist thinking will (n.b.: I did not say "would") lead to 90+% of the Internet connections and hosts in the US being controlled by one company. - so? Do you remember what BBSs were? People connecting to each other over phone lines. The only 'big player' was the phone company (without even knowing it.)

If a corporation paid for some amount of cable and doesn't want your information to flow through it, they are in their complete right to restrict the usage to those, who they want to see using their cables. They are also in their complete right to burn that cable, to cut it into pieces and make toys from it. To dig it out and sink it into the ocean (when noone is looking, I am sure that some environmentalist fanatics would have a problem with that.)

If I bought some land, put some cable through it and decided that to use my cable you have to pay a toll, you wouldn't have either legal no moral standing to have exception with my decision.

Re:Capitalism

[Caspian]

Before you ask me how, it's simple. Here's one possible scenario.

Company A de-prioritizes (or outright refuses to carry) Company B's packets unless they pay an extortionate fee. Eventually, Companies A and B merge. People like you will say "So what? They have the right to charge whatever prices they want, and they have the right to merge too. It's a Free Market(TM), The Market Forces Will Prevail(TM)."

Then the newly merged Companies A and B set their sights on Company C. Same thing happens; A/B and C merge, and people like you say "So what? They have the right to merge. It's a Free Market(TM), The Market Forces Will Prevail(TM).".

Meanwhile, A/B/C have been charging extortionate rates to the major ISPs (who continue snapping up local and regional ISPs as they've been doing for years). Eventually, A/B/C acquire or merge with most of the major ISPs. And people like you will say "So what? They have the right to charge whatever prices they want, they have the right to acquire other companies, and they have the right to merge too. It's a Free Market(TM), The Market Forces Will Prevail(TM)."

Then what you have is a country with one quasi-monopolistic company holding 90+% of the dialup and broadband connections and 90+% of the Internet infrastructure. And people like you will continue to call it a "Free Market(TM)".

Just like how people like you call the world of software a "Free Market(TM)", when if you don't buy Microsoft operating systems and office suites and Adobe graphics software, you are basically forced out of the market due to numerous factors (incompatibilities both subtle and gross, MS's sleazy business practices a la "you will bundle our softawre with ALL of your computers, or we'll jack up the rates", and so on).

I'm beginning to think that "free market" is just another euphemism. Today's "free market" doesn't stand for "freedom". Tomorrow's will be worse...

Think I'm nuts? Look at what's happening to telcos. They're all merging back into a new Ma Bell.

Re:Capitalism

[ranton]

Even here, you are missing the real point. The business has paid for access to the network. I have paid for access to the network

This is the exact place where I do not see the difference. Like I said before: consumers and businesses already pay taxes to use highways, just like you and businesses have paid for access to the network. But businesses then have to pay even more for a "premium" location.

--

Re:Capitalism

[ranton]

Maybe I am being cynical but I suspect the Telco's involved would provide a better and quicker network for those customers paying them for the new service by degrading everyone who isn't paying.

This is a valid concern, but if this ended up being the case then that is a place for the government to step in. Just like any kind of unfair business practice, we have to rely on the government to govern that. But not letting the Telcos change their business practices out of fear of the possibility of malicious intent is no different than banning all guns because they might be used to kill people.

--

Re:Capitalism

[whyrat]

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.

Re:Capitalism

[mrisaacs]

The point you miss is that the purchase of more expensive property - closer to the major highway is not usually a transaction between a business and the road builder.

The purchase of a prime location is the equivalent of buying highspeed connections. The content providers already do this, as does every other broadband user.

What the telcos are suggesting is that in addition to the access fees already paid, is that the providers pay protection money to insure that too many hops or low speed segments are not placed between themselves and the consumers.

Fromthe consumer point of view, the telcos are proposing something akin to paying a toll to get on a highspeed interchange and then being forced to use the service road, because the manufacturer of your vehicle hasn't paid a corresponding sur-charge, required because this brand is more popular, and more vehicles of this type are trying to gain access to the road. In this scenario it doesn't matter (to the consumer) what level of access they've paid for - the conection to their preferred site will be downgraded.

It's not a proper model, since I, the consumer have already paid for the bandwidth, and the provider has paid for a certain level of service as well.

Re:Capitalism

[lynx_user_abroad]

Like I said before: consumers and businesses already pay taxes to use highways, just like you and businesses have paid for access to the network.

Your analogy is flawed.

In the U.S., highways are built by and maintained with public money which is gathered in the form of taxes, including such things as fuel taxes, license and registration fees, etc. (Toll roads are an exception.) So to say that both private individuals and business both indirectly fund the roads is for the most part correct.

This does not hold for the Internet.

The Internet is composed of a large number of privately built, privately owned, and privately maintained networks which have been internetworked together. If you use dialup, then you are using the publically finded (and paid for largely by tax dollars) telephone system running across public infrastructure under Common Carrier rules to reach a private modem bank. Once you hit the modem bank, you're on a private network. If you have any sort of broadband access (cable modem, high-bandwidth portion of a DSL line, etc) you're on a private network as soon as you hit the network interface. Even if your Internet access is provided by a municipality or a public school, it's considered a private network.

So the telco's have a point to say you're using their network. Unless you're in favor of nationalizing the Internet (let's not go there, please) you really have no claim to it as just a taxpayer.

So while both "you and businesses" can demand a phone line, you can't demand high-speed Internet access: it's only available if some private network provided chooses to let you have access, and you choose to pay their asking price.

Re:Capitalism

[alder]

...the government broke up a "monopoly" into the "baby bells". ...the phone companies have to compete with each other...

Oh, that's what has happened! So all those "baby bells" now actually compete with each other to provide you with a Local Access service?..

Re:Capitalism

[lynx_user_abroad]

I don't believe there would any benefit to me with this new arrangement and yet I would be expected to pay for it anyway.

Not necessarity. The major players (FCC, IRS, Telcos, traditional ISP's like AOL and Earthlink, and content providers represented by the RIAA and the MPAA) have already figured out how to make this two-tier system work, under existing laws and legal precedence. The standards have already been agreed to. Here's how it's going to work:

First, this second-tier is only aimed at people who have exceptional Internet needs, not your average joe. You aren't required to pay taxes (or at least not any additional taxes) to fund TierTwo access. Access to any TierOne site for any TierOne user is guaranteed to be on an equal access basis, and that's written into the law. No blocking, no service degradation (even for such things as latency) is allowed. Network providers are required to meet certain standards and they don't get a break for things like 'congestion' and such. There are serious sanctions and stiff fines (not to mention mounds of paperwork) for even minor degradation events. Prices for TierOne access are expected to remain reasonable (well below charges for TierTwo access) and price regulation will be put into place if low cost access can't be maintained by market forces. And the best part is that providers are required by law to provide TierOne access across the entire markets they serve, no cherry-picking just the most lucrative subscribers.

TierTwo will only be necessary if you're one of those high-end internet users who has exceptional networking needs. For example, if you need gobs and gobs of bandwidth, or if you use an application that demands extremely high reliability, or if you need extremely low latency, or if you need special services most people would never have a need for, like a static IP, or other such stuff.

In fact, the Internet will function pretty much like it does today (at least that's what everyone is working hard for, because otherwise it will never fly) and the only change will be that some people may decide to give up TierTwo service if they don't need the value-added stuff and instead go back to TierOne to save some money.

About the only thing that will come as a surprise is where they've drawn the line between TierOne and TierTwo: 56Kbps bidirectionali, established point-to-point on an as-needed basis. Call it: Dial-up.

This system is already in place. The FCC Regulatory structure and Tax rates are already well understood. We have a structure to account for the value of previously subsidized infrastructure investments and so on. The ISP's have a sane legislative context on which to form their business models, and while the content providers aren't happy about not being able to go after the Common Carriers, they are agreed that they don't have much to fear from pirates running at dial-up speeds.

Welcome to the new Internet: Just like 1984, but more so.

Re:Capitalism

[Presto Vivace]

I don't think this is about competing. I think this is about finding a way to charge more for your current product line. As someone suggested above, this is like charging both parties to make a phone call, rather than simply charging once to have a dial tone.

Re:Capitalism

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

And yet when they do share it "for free" with peering agreements, we get an unbelievably large global network called the internet.

They want us to revert to a 1960s AT&T world though, where they get to charge you an ungodly lease for any modem hooked up to their line.

Charging anyone, whether it ends up being me, or Google, for service I'm already paying for is illegal. They've used all their political influence to make competition unfeasible, and now that there isn't much at all, they're going to use that to extort people. That's fucking wrong.

And I didn't even mention how while in theory we can always boycott whichever tier 2 ISP we like, it's much harder to effectively boycott the tier 1 providers. All the little DSL companies we like so much (covad, speakeasy, etc) still have to get their backbone connection from somewhere...

Re:Capitalism

[roman_mir]

To be honest with you I don't care. I live in Canada, today we elected new government: Conservatives. I am happy.
--
If a firm A decides to ask more money for their cables, I say good for them. Free Market will take care of it, there will be competition.

Small question:

[TripMaster Monkey]

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...

Re:Small question:

[HugePedlar]

AT&T haven't exactly demonstrated clear, logical thinking in the past, so why start now?

Remember how they got plastic mouthpiece covers banned on the basis that they impaired the telephone service? Or how they banned plastic phonebook covers because they obscured advertising and devalued the product?

The big telcos don't live in the same reality as anyone else. That's the only explanation. Their business philosophy seems to be the reverse of anyone else's.

Re:Small question:

[gothzilla]

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

Re:Small question:

[joebagodonuts]

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?"

Re:Small question:

[p00pyhead]

You are paying for bandwidth? ok. you will now pay for latency.

Re:Small question:

[arivanov]

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.

Re:Small question:

[OwnedByTwoCats]

AT&T is not AT&T.

Or rather, AT&T now, is SBC. They bought AT&T, got the debt and the imploding Long Lines business, and that's about it.

AT&T 1984-2005 is the deregulated AT&T. Competing against and losing to MCI, Sprint, and lotsa little guys.

AT&T 1881-1983 is the "telephones are ours. Ours! OURS!" guys.

Re:Small question:

[ranton]

but aren't the end users paying for these pipes?

You are paying for access to the internet, just like you pay the government taxes for access to the highway system. But companies still have to pay more money for real estate on a heavily trafficked section of the highway, just like the Telcos want to get more money from business running on their pipes.

-

Re:Small question:

[jurgen]

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.

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) /do/ have fiber out there.

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. :j

Re:Small question:

[Live_in_Dayton]

Also, don't content providers already have to pay to have their stuff hosted?

Re:Small question:

[ibjhb]

Reading the article, I was thinking that also. Maybe Google has the foresight to see this coming and they want to be able to combat the telcos to keep their costs low.

If Google has purchased enough, they could actually provide priority themselves keeping the telcos from charging whatever they want.

Re:Small question:

[mckyj57]

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!''

Guess what, bud -- you don't have any content. So you are even.

Re:Small question:

[poot_rootbeer]

Perhaps I'm missing the point here, but aren't the end users paying for these pipes?

Actually, the users on BOTH ends are already paying for those pipes. Companies like Amazon and Google pay millions of dollars for their bandwidth.

Re:Small question:

[masdog]

What the AT&T exec fails to realize is that content providers are some of their biggest customers. Do they really think Ebay and Google get all the bandwidth for free? They pay to connect to the Internet just like everyone else.

Re:Small question:

[955301]

AT&T 1984-2005 is the deregulated AT&T

So's SBC. And BellSouth. And both of them got together and started Cingular. Who bought AT&T Wireless.

Noticing anything here?

Re:Small question:

[gothzilla]

Oooh good point. Maybe Google will start charging the telcos to use all the fiber they just sold to them? lol
We went from modems to 1mbit broadband very quickly. I think all that dark fiber will be necessary in just a few years.

Eminent Domain

[Billosaur]

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.

Re:Eminent Domain

[Eli Gottlieb]

Yeah, like a Republican Congress under the Bush Administration would even [i]threaten[/i] to nationalize [i]anything[/i].

Now given that the telcos are local monopolies, threatening breakup or nationalization would be great leverage to get these bastards back in line. It just isn't going to happen until at least after the midterm Congressional elections, and that's presuming more Democrats are elected!

Re:Eminent Domain

[Glock27]

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.

Re:Eminent Domain

[LWATCDR]

"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."

That sounds... Terrible.
What people don't really get is that Bell South really doesn't care about the Google search site or Yahoo search. They care about GTalk, Launch, iTunes, Skype , and Vontage. VoIP is the really killer right now with video coming soon. I really wouldn't sweat it too much. What is going to happen is that we will start to have a data connection to our homes and not a cable and phone. In the near future you will have the option of several data carriers trying to get your money. The ones that block certain sites will not get as many customers as those that do. This is going to be one of the really bad ideas that cause companies to go belly up.

Re:Eminent Domain

[JerkBoB]

Yeah, like a Republican Congress under the Bush Administration would even [i]threaten[/i] to nationalize [i]anything[/i].

You know, this being the Intarweb and all, that you can actually use HTML tags, instead of [b]pseudo[/b]-tags?

Nitpicks aside, what makes you think that Democrats are any more likely than Republicans to nationalize anything? They're two sides of the same coin.

Re:Eminent Domain

[Eli Gottlieb]

Both points are good ones. I maintain a habit of using bbcode on boards and HTML tags on Slashdot, but they sometimes get mixed up. And Slashdot doesn't have editing functionality.

Re:Eminent Domain

[ranton]

I think it is funny that on Slashdot the government can do whatever it wants as long as it only hurts big companies. If it hurts small companies or the average person, then it is an outrage. But if a Telco or Microsoft or Amazon is hurt by unfair legislation or overabundant governmental control, it is okay or even welcomed.

Re:Eminent Domain

[Billosaur]

The thing about this 2-tiered Internet is, it hurts everyone, from comapnies to individual users. What it says is, "only those of you who play by our rules [the telcos] can get faster access, otherwise we take our toys and go home." The telecom companies created this situation and now they want to throw a tantrum because they can't profit from it (even more!). And so, not only will it hurt the big firs, but the mid-level and small firms, who will have to shell out more of their precious cash to keep up with the big guys, and in the end this "play-by-our-rules" mentality will mean that content may be altered in way we users don't like or appreciate.

Re:Eminent Domain

[TehDagda]

Here's my take on the whole thing. All it's going to take to make the telecoms see a little reality is for one of the many ISPs out there to take full advantage of this phenomenal blunder with an advertising campaign and open access.

Imagine what would happen if Comcast for example were to widely advertise that ISPs X, Y and Z plan to implement service speed restrictions (especially during a time where ALL of them are screaming at us how much faster/better/whatever their service is) and that Comcast promises to continue to provide unrestricted access to their customers. Joe Blow would quickly become aware of this sneaky plan to attempt to control "his" access to "his" content reinforcing the general malaise the public already feels towards these companies, and he would be informed of a very attractive (in this light) unrestricted higher-speed (in that speeds wouldnt intentionally be reduced by the ISP) alternative. I bet hed be willing to pay whatever service fees were necessary for unfettered access.

With a well structured advertising campaign, how long do you really think it would take a company like Comcast to seriously injure or bankrupt these monopolistic entities (I know Comcast isnt exempt from that definition but they have their own infrastructure so I think it's a good example)?

Re:Eminent Domain

[Lord Ender]

Criticizing a company for being greedy is like criticizing an iceberg for being cold. I'm sure I am not the only person who stops reading a comment when the writer makes such a pointless statement.

All such a statement communicates is that the writer isn't knowledgale enough to write about the statement at hand. It implies he thinks there are some companies who are not greedy--a delerious fantasy.

Re:Eminent Domain

[Glock27]

Criticizing a company for being greedy is like criticizing an iceberg for being cold. I'm sure I am not the only person who stops reading a comment when the writer makes such a pointless statement.

Perhaps you should work on your reading comprehension skills. I wasn't referring to the company, but to the decision makers. All those who run companies aren't necessarily "greedy jerks", many ensure their companies provide reasonable value for the consumer dollar. Not so these fools.

I also used the term "rampant greed", not just "greed". You might want to look up the word "rampant".

All such a statement communicates is that the writer isn't knowledgale enough to write about the statement at hand. It implies he thinks there are some companies who are not greedy--a delerious fantasy.

I *know* there are companies which provide reasonable value for monies received. Bellsouth appears to want off that list rather badly.

Re:Eminent Domain

[budgenator]

Comcast is in on it they are promoting their own VoIP plan and will probably route vonage/skype packet through the slo-go routers. Comcast and SBC or AT&T or whoever the hell they are this week are having an add war on the cable in my area

Re:Eminent Domain

[anopres]

I think that is actually the way it should work. Anti-trust law and regulation are supposed to work to put the brakes on business when it becomes anti-competitive. I think the real problem is that our government is bought and paid for by the very big businesses they are supposed to keep in check. If it were up to me, you'd never see another fortune 1000 merger/acquisition.

Re:Eminent Domain

[Lord Ender]

Whether you think they treat you fairly or not, in both cases, the primary motivation of the company is greed.

Corruption of management would be a different thing than greed.

Vote with your feet

[Ilex]

Sure you could prioritize yahoo over google but would want to risk to loosing customers to rival ISP's who are more google friendly or even face regulation from the likes of offcom. Of course this mainly applies to the UK. The government in the US is a lot more pro corporate / anti-consumer.

Public Utility?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is the web/internet becoming a public utility? It is becoming more and more important to commerce and also is a shared resource. Up to now, telcoms have played nice. But if access becomes restricted and privatized, so that only a few players can afford fast and efficient access, that has the potential of destroying the utility of the internet. Barriers to entry will arise and the internet and web could stagnate. Should it be regulated as a utility, with safeguards to insure entry into the commons? Is this even possible?

Next: exploit their loss of common carrier status

[Rude Turnip]

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.

Death!

[Glock27]

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.

GARBLEDINA!

[pete-classic]

Did Strong Mad write that headline?

Seriously. That's bupkis!

And that's the end of my show (donk).

-Peter

Answer For Retail

[ranton]

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?

--

Re:Answer For Retail

[blirp]

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 there is no real estate here? And besides, Google certainly pays for fat lines into their houses. This is all no-argument bullshit.

M.

Re:Answer For Retail

[qwijibo]

Both types of businesses have the same basic costs and staffing when it comes to inventory jockeys and administrative tasks like accounting. However, internet based businesses also need to pay for skilled workers to maintain the servers. Online stores also have to pay for the bandwidth they need. Also, retail has the advantage of proximity - if someone drives by your store, they might want to stop sometime. Online businesses need to get people to find their site. Retail stores only have to compete with other retail stores near them. Online stores have to compete with thousands of other places that are just as easy to go to.

Compare businesses on the internet with mail order if you want to be reasonable. Neither needs to be in a high traffic area, but both need to be somewhere that they can have goods shipped to and from them in a timely manner. Both have lower margins than retail stores and have to make up the difference in volume. Not being a place customers can just stop by, it's important to build a reputation so people will find your store.

Trying to level the playing field by artificially inflating costs will only have one outcome - higher cost to the consumer. The cost of starting an online business is smaller than a retail establishment, but more online businesses never generate enough income to grow.

Re:Answer For Retail

[ranton]

Because there is no real estate here

There isnt? What makes "real estate" on the internet backbone any different than "real estate" on a public highway? Paying for the use of land has been around for centuries because mankind has always had land and had a use for it. The internet is new, and it isnt hard to see that there will be new things to pay for as the internet matures.

Buying a high speed connection is similar to paying a government taxes to live within their country. Paying Telcos for a better "location" on the internet is then similar to paying the same government to operate a business within their country.

--

Re:Answer For Retail

[Amouth]

You already pay rent for your store.. it is called rack space and bandwith cost.

see what gets me with this damn thing is this

Google ---> pays for access ---> Bell's --- pays for access --- ME

now when you break the "Bell's" apart the are many wan clouds.. each paying each other for traffic and peered to each other with diffrent agreements..

now one of them (the one that is closest to the customer) wants more money and is attempting extortion to get it out of the one way on the other side of the network..

there is nothing right about this.. and my best hope is that people will inform them that they are wrong by switching providers.. i know i have already talked 3 people into it.. and if MCI even things about this i am going to up and move my t1's to a diffrent provider..

Re:Answer For Retail

[blirp]

There isnt? What makes "real estate" on the internet backbone any different than "real estate" on a public highway

Because it's not a location, it's a service. It would be like paying more money on a tollway to go in the fast lane.

Paying Telcos for a better "location" on the internet is then similar to paying the same government to operate a business within their country.

Somewhat, but it's paying for a service, and Amazon, Google, Microsoft and so on pays a *lot* for their fat lines.

M.

e-Terms

[Caspian]

"Your Rights Online: The Future of e-Commerce and e-Information?"

Any time I see a word beginning with "e-", I reach for my Glock.

Ditto "iFoo" (Apple and Apple alone excepted), "MyFoo", and the like.

Re:e-Terms

[Flaming Babies]

Did you happen to purchase that Glock at this website?

Re:e-Terms

[Rob T Firefly]

In that case, stay away from Old McDonald dot com, makers of e-i-e-i-O.

Re:e-Terms

[Thunderstruck]

You're absolutely right, we need to diversify our marketspeak. Lets bring back "tron," "cyber," and "o-matic" as prefixes and suffixes for the next gee-whiz widget!

Greed is NOT good

[digitaldc]

Now that more and more money is being made using the internet, Corporate greed is tainting everything from internet search results to the integrity of the internet itself. This was not the original intent of creating the 'Information Superhighway.'

Sure you can wait for your site to load, but why? Just because tiny fraction of the world's population wants it that way? With a greater income gap in this country and world, this will only lead to the MOST AFFLUENT to be able to afford to have a fast, reliable and enjoyable web site. Not my idea of a free Internet.

Network Neutrality is essential for maintaining a free and fair internet.

Re:Greed is NOT good

[pimpimpim]

if I'm not completely incorrect the original intent of the internet was to have a highly branched network that would be stable enough to do military communications:

http://www.internetvalley.com/archives/mirrors/cer f-how-inet.txt

You want more money?

[AviLazar]

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.

Re:You want more money?

[Doctor Faustus]

I use comcast, yea I pay more, but you know what - i get 3 times the speed of verizon DSL
Cable's a lot more hit-or-miss than DSL. Good cable, like my parents have and I had under MediaOne, is noticably faster than DSL. Bad cable isn't.

Re:You want more money?

[johnny cashed]

Agreed. Is VoIP eating your lunch? Maybe you need to start throwing in all those features you (the telco) used to charge for. Caller-ID? free. Call Forwarding? free. Statewide area calling? free. It is called competition for a reason. Learn the game telcos. Unfortunately, it seems the game they are learning is to lobby congress for regulation that suits them.

Re:You want more money?

[AviLazar]

Cable's a lot more hit-or-miss than DSL. Good cable, like my parents have and I had under MediaOne, is noticably faster than DSL. Bad cable isn't

I have always had comcast, but lived in different areas (Center city philly, west philadelphia, west chester, springfield, and drexel hill) the cable was always fast...maybe it is because it all belongs to comcast (a monopoly of itself) but definitly better then DSL...worth it for me to pay the extra bucks...especially since I do not keep a landline anyhow (i have a cell).

Scary

[Quixote]

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.

Re:Americentric

[LWATCDR]

Big shock considering that you are posting on a Website created by Americans, owned by an American company, and in English. Why wouldn't Slashdot tend to be Americentric?

Not going to happen

[c4ffeine]

As much as the content providers would want to pull a stunt like that, it just won't work out in the long run. There's just too many companies that have a significant online presence for this to ever work. Google has already announced that they don't want to pay, and their recent track record indicates that they'd fight it in court if necessary. I'd think that they'd have a good case- after all, the consumers bought an unlimited connection to the Internet, not a connection to websites that could afford to bribe ISPs.

What's Microsoft's stance on this? They're probably the most influential party that's potentially interested.

Selling it on the Hill

[HangingChad]

Here's how Bellsouth is trying to push their idea on the Hill:

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!!!

Big Players Lose

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

you may one day discover that Yahoo suddenly responds much faster to your inquiries, overriding your affinity for Google.

Considering how much "dark fiber" Google owns, I suspect they saw this comming. I think it is not Google, but Yaho and MSN that might be in for problems. And, don't think that the Big Palyers in the content supply business will just sit by and take this, they have a lot to lose...

Re:Big Players Lose

[graxrmelg]

I'm more worried about the little players among content providers. The big guys will get by even if they have to negotiate agreements with the communications providers, but random websites run by individuals or small groups or companies will disappear in an environment that requires everyone to pay ISPs for carrying their content (or carrying it at a speed and quality that users will tolerate). That could effectively eliminate all Internet content not sponsored by large corporations.

In other news

[Anonymous Coward]

Starting next Monday the Yellow Cab Company of Chicago will begin charging all business to which a fare is delivered. "It is unreasonable," said Abraham Stoley, President of Yellow Cab, "for businesses to receive the benefit of customers and employees arriving at their sites in a safe and timely manner and for them to pay nothing. We spend time, we spend gas, and quite frankly, we expect them to pay their fair share of the fare." Although they are not implementing it at this time, Mr. Stoley went on to say that they may also begin billing all businesses passed on the way to a destination, as these business receive "free marketing". Businesses everywhere were unavailable for comment.

Shamelessly lifted from revery as an AC. Go /.!

Linked article is about an article in a magazine on a subject that has already been addressed before on teh intarwebs!

This is a Quasi-dupe. A semi-dupe. A margarine dupe. The Diet Coke of dupes: Just one calorie, not dupe enough!

The way it should work

[RealProgrammer]

The TCP/IP suite was designed to provide multiple routes to a given destination, to allow network viability in case of disaster (think nuclear attack). It's supposed to be a mesh, not a tree.

The way it should work is for everyone to have multiple network connections. I should peer with my neighbors, so that his DSL connection and my cable connection share bandwidth over our wireless gateways, or perhaps just falling over when one of the two is down. If he quits paying his DSL bill and or otherwise starts abusing my connection, I can either be charitable or not.

The same is true at the ISP level. Each ISP should pay for an upstream connection, and they all should peer with their local competitors. It's in everyone's interest, in the long run.

In the consumer era (since 1994), the twig-branch ISP rented a pipe from a bigger provider. A big portion of their fixed costs were their upstream charges. Having more than one upstream provider is expensive. Because of a combination of competitive zeal and market lockins, they don't peer with their competitors (at least, not as much as they should). The result is a tree. That's why you hear that someone's Internet connection is down. If implemented as conceived, you'd never hear that.

This round of pipe-throttling is an attempt by the dark side to enforce the tree structure that increases profit potential at the top of the tree, while it also increases risk of downtime for everyone. Its cause is avarice, but I don't know whether that is allowed expression due to foolish ignorance or informed evil. After all, perhaps they don't know that if they charge for something and can't provide it, the market will show its wrath in equal proportion to their greed.

Re:The way it should work

[Aspirator]

Absolutely it should work that way, and for the major sites in question it does,
yahoo, google, amazon, ebay etc. are all multiply connected Tier 1.

They pay for access too.

I resent being stuck out on a twig of a branch of a limb of the internet, with all the
unreliability that my ADSL telco provides.

Nope. Ma and Pa have to get with the program.

[ScentCone]

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.

Re:Nope. Ma and Pa have to get with the program.

[ranton]

Because it's not the same type of business.

I agree, internet sales and retail sales are two different types of business. But they are still both businesses, and similarities can be found between the two. American Football and soccer are two different sports, but punching opposing players is still illegal in both games.

While you made very good points on why Internet and Retail businesses are different, I didnt see anything that referred to why they shouldnt be treated the same when it comes to paying for their accessibility to customers.

--

Re:Nope. Ma and Pa have to get with the program.

[ScentCone]

While you made very good points on why Internet and Retail businesses are different, I didnt see anything that referred to why they shouldnt be treated the same when it comes to paying for their accessibility to customers.

Not that it matters, but they do. Online businesses pay a lot to handle traffic, maintain what it is that the customers see, pay commissions to the affiliates that drive them traffic, and lots more in other forms of marketing (without which no one would even know they exist, let alone find them credible enough to give them a credit card number).

But I think the real problem here is the notion that it's just not fair unless all businesses are equally weighed down by the same overhead. Not fair would be penalizing those people who, through the adoption of newer ideas, technologies, and cultural trends, have found a way to do business with less overhead.

50 years ago, a busy brick-and-mortar retailer would have needed many more cashiers, back-office cash accounting and inventory people, file clerks, etc. Along comes another retailer that's using bar-code scanners, computerized inventory management, direct-deposit card transactions... and you've suddenly got a retailer with greatly reduced overhead that can afford to lower its prices and thus put pressure on the "older" business that hasn't adopted the same technologies.

But they're both still paying rent for their stores, right? But the newer business only has to employ 3 office workers as opposed to the older businesses 10. They can serve the same or more customers without needing as many square feet of office space, as many parking spaces, the same amount of health care insurance, etc. Just by using technology, the newer business can get away with leasing less real estate. That's very similar to the observation that the dot-com version of Ma and Pa's store is competing without having to use as much expensive retail floor space.

Why should a business have to pay anything like what and older business is paying to make themselves available to their customers, when their customers are already paying for an internet pipe? Further, the dot-com is going to be writing some gigantic checks to UPS or FedEx to fulfill those transactions. Rarely does the consumer directly appear to pay the actual cost of the shipping of their merchandise... it's offset in the markup on the item. Just like Ma and Pa do with their overhead.

But the whole point of a competitive economy is to reward those that come up with more efficient and enjoyable ways of doing things. And you don't need a government agency or organized body to make the rewards - the consumers reward them just by appreciating their business model and spending money with them. Some sense that dot-coms need to have the playing field leveled so that they don't succeed as easily (or with their lower overhead) is just punishing innovation and efficiency. To do that by (per the article) letting some ISP slow down the connections to businesses that don't pay to boost it will just move the problem... small online businesses can't carry the overhead of large ones, in a scenario like that. That whole proposal is just nonsense on the part of the telcos, anyway... the cable providers and other carriers will dance circles around them, in terms of acquiring users.

Arrogant ass!

[Moby Cock]

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!''

Comments like the one above give insight to the arrogance of executives at monopolist corporations. It seems as though he assumes that the 100 million subscribers are a given quantity that his company should have and at present the world is using their pipes for free. What a fucking jackass this guy is. I can't imagine a situation where Google will pay these fees, barring legislation forcing them too. I hope Yahoo, AOL, Amazon and eBay stay strong too. When it comes to internet business, they are the 600 lb gorrillas. Sadly, it seems that the stonger lobby (whoever it might be) will win the day.

Re:Americentric

[Average_Joe_Sixpack]

eBay doesn't even operate in my country

Do you live in Petoria?

Re:Next: exploit their loss of common carrier stat

[kingpin2k]

Parent is exactly right. The ISP's can't be responsible for only part of their traffic (ie ensuring speedy Google delivery). If they go down this path, ALL traffic is their responsibility. It's nuts that they would even get close to this issue. Part of me wants them to succeed just for the sick legal (read: civil litigation) ramifications to kick in.

A piece of the action?

[Happy Lemming]

You can't really blame the telcos for trying to enhance their revenue. Highwaymen, freight lines, and customs have been taking their cut for eons.

Would you pay less for access to a subset of the Internet? Would you pay more for guaranteed universal access?

WaPo doesn't grok HTML

[Intron]

Other AT&T executives

But then, neither does the /. plain old text function

Countermeasures to 2-teir

[G4from128k]

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.

Middle Ages of the Internet

[the eric conspiracy]

This reminds me of stories from the middle ages when local robber barons set up their own tolls on local roads as sort of a protection racket. The ultimate solution was to have government take over and run the roads. I wonder if that is where this will lead.

Re:Middle Ages of the Internet

[WhiteWolf666]

Depends; People would have been okay with paying some tolls; its exorbant prices and lack of choices that doom the scheme.

If you live in an area with multiple service providers, this will be a non-issue. Some providers will realize they can make more money using an all-you-can eat billing system and high quality service; speakeasy does this, as do several of the smaller cable companies.

Re:Middle Ages of the Internet

[DescData]

Setting up a block on a road is not very effective, you can detour. What you do is block a brige a river. That has been done on the Rhine.

Flawed Logic

[Vila, Bob]

The logic here is flawed. Consumers are currently paying for the pipes. Now the companies should pay too? Would that mean a drastic reduction in consumer's fees from these providers?

That's like saying a business should have to pay for the costs involved in getting the consumer to the doorstop. Next time I run to Home Depot, I'll make sure to demand they reimburse my gasoline for the trip. Why the hell should they get a free ride in all of this?!

The only way it will fly is if it means a significant reduction in consumer prices. I could see some people paying $15/mo for this type of access, with some sites capped at 1Mbps or so, and others higher. Versus $50/month for everything at 6Mbps. Anything else and I don't see how it could get a second glance from consumers.

Re:Flawed Logic

[WhiteWolf666]

Minor point; Google, Yahoo, etc. . . Already pay for their own pipes, as well.

What, you thought those OC-3s going into Google's datacenters were free?

Not to belittle what you are saying, but both the content providers and the content consumers pay for bandwidth; we're already charged on both ends of the spectrum!

These teleco's can rot in hell.

Re:Flawed Logic

[Vila, Bob]

I agree, thanks for the reply.

A closer analogy would be road maintenance, of which consumers and businesses both share the costs of in taxes. The consumers contribute the vast majority of the funds, just as with internet access to Google.

The telco's idea would be equivalent to cities, counties, and states giving road maintenance or expansion preference to those businesses they could bribe (or exploit depending on how you look at it).

"All road maintenance will be put into a 20-year cycle for those buisnesses unwilling to pay an extra 25% in their taxes. Businesses willing to pay extra will have their local roads upgraded annually. "

Everybody suffers except for the telco. Doesn't sound like anyone will buy into it.

Sounds like an American problem only

[daBass]

AFAIK, in most european countries, telcos are just DSL providers, that is they provide an ADSL line to your ISP through their DSLAM, just like in the old dial-up days.

On top of that, many now have competition, being required to give access to the subscriber lines. This gives you the situation where, in the UK, you can just have your "ma bell" British Telecom POTS line, running through an Easynet DSLAM to mix in your ADSL signal.

In the Netherlands it goes so far that ISP XS4All gives you different packages, with a choice of who actually provides the DSLAM and peering to XS4All.

And this stuff is all regulated that way to make sure there is fair competition and consumers get the best while still allowing BT - who owns the lines - to make more than a healthy profit.

Their real target is VOIP

[Maclir]

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.

Re:Americentric

[PhoenixFlare]

Americentric

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

Re:Next: exploit their loss of common carrier stat

[jacksonj04]

I disagree with some points there. Upcoming IPv6 priority headers are part of the spec and should be honoured. This means if a packet comes through with a high priority header it should be given that priority. This doesn't take common carrier status, it's simply following the spec and the switches passively obey the headers.

However, explicitly analysing packets looking for "google.com" and then setting them to higher priority, or looking for "generickiddiepornsite.com" and blocking them, *does* strip them of common carrier because they are actively monitoring traffic and altering its content or delivery based on its original content.

For example, mobile phone operators in the UK at least (US may vary) have to follow rules about allowing numbers emergency operation and bandwidth priority. This doesn't take common carrier since it's part of how the system works, but allocating priority to any text saying "BEGIN JIHAD FOR HONOUR OF ALLAH" would remove that common carrier since they pay attention to content (Note - services used e.g. via WAP are not covered in this, because that requested data is not a direct part of the network carrying the data).

Mind boggling, huh? I'd just wait for a lawyer to drop in.

Re:Americentric

[Anonymous Coward]

www.ebay.co.uk
www.amazon.co.uk

Would this result in increased use of mod_gz?

[Marrow]

Will more information begin to get compressed on the fly? Perhaps based on target IP address ranges?

How about optimization (or decimation) of images.

Maybe it will come just as fast, but be simplified or uglier pages specifically targeted to the carriers that slow stuff down.

And then competing technologies like cablemodem and such will be able to offer a "prettier internet" to their customers.

Re:Would this result in increased use of mod_gz?

[Marrow]

Also perhaps, there will be a kind of bittorrent redirection available, on the fly caches shared by people that are browsing the same pages or images.

Maybe instead of a image being sent, it will be a quicklink to a person on your own lan who just got that information. An optin service that would accelerate everyone.

Re:Americentric

[Weedlekin]

To be fair, there are also plenty of Slashdot stories about the UK, Aus, NZ, China, and lots of other countries when something happens in one of them that geeks find interesting.

massive litigation...

[Uzik2]

Can you say "conspiracy"

Re:Americentric

[LWATCDR]

"What about the Americans that speak Spanish as a first language?" That would complaining that the site was Engishcentric not Americentric.
"or all the people around the world that speak English but aren't American - like, um, the English!" Slashdot is was founded and is run buy a bunch of buys in the US and is owned by an American company. Besides it is written for the most port in American English which is different than UK English. Complaining that Slashdot is Americentric is like complaining that Le Monde is Francocentric!

taking a lesson from cable TV

[regularjoe]

I pay the cable company ( and the content providers) to show me content that contains ads that the advetisiers pay the content providerd (and the cable company) to show.

The industry (cable comapany and content providers) makes money on bothe ends by charging me to see ads that the advertisers are also paying them to show me.

I gave up cable years ago beacuae of this. Most of what I wnated to watch on cable contained about 50% advertising.

No Thanks.

Re:taking a lesson from cable TV

[engagebot]

Same thing is happening with satellite radio. The point of a subscription service was to pay for radio outright instead of paying indirectly through listening to commercials. Now you're paying, and you still get advertisments in there every once in a while.

it happened to cable tv years ago. now it has just as much advertisement as anything else, and by this point, everybody's fine with it.

Telcos Risking Irrelevance?

[amelith]

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

Re:Americentric

[PhoenixFlare]

Indeed there are - which makes such complaints even more perplexing.

Who are these people and can we kill them?

[namespan]

Seriously. These guys are basically the same level of morality and worth to society as Spammers -- looking for an easy way to make an extra buck at the expense of the total experience.

And if we can't murder them and have their arms and legs mailed back to their families by the powers of darkness, maybe it's time to make a pact among geeks that THEIR email and internet traffic should always run an order or magnitude more slowly.

Re:Americentric

[Elixon]

I'm from Europe... And maybe if Europe is not paying then all american customers will gain the speed with "-10" koeficient ;-)

It sounds very silly to me. It looks like the idea that shopping centers should pay to cabs or mass transit because people are using cabs and busses to get into stores... Sure, customers will have cheaper tickets and cheaper cabs but... does it make a sense?

Re:Americentric

[kadathseeker]

You have an internet connection apparently, so... how can you not have... what... I don't... Where the HELL _do_ you live? As for Amerocentrism, all periods in history were (primary superpower)centric. Rome was Rome-centric, the British Empire was Britcentric, the Cold War era was Soviet, China, American, and Western Europe-centric. Today, the US, the EU, China, Japan, and the Middle Eastern nations are the most important. Don't feel bad if your country isn't one of the movers and shakers - remeber the Chinese curse about living in interesting times (I'm American btw, and I sometimes wish we were more like the Swiss, only with nukes instead of an army and the Alps).

Technical Question

[WhiteWolf666]

What exactly are we talking about?

Anyone have any idea what level of service degredation we are talking about? Are we talking about priorities for paying companies, or are we talking about intentionall introducing jitter for VOIP and Video?

Re:The answer is "everywhere."

[DogDude]

I'd love to see Google (or someone) provide free and simple to install search tools for business inventories, libraries and even garage sales.

They already have.

You can't lose what you don't have.

[Sir Pallas]

People keep talking about common carrier status, but as far as I understand it ISPs are designated as "information services," not common carriers, and are therefore subject to Title I of the Communications Act, not Title II. In fact, ISPs fought against being classified as common carriers so that they could pull stunts like this.

Re:Americentric

[dekemoose]

"It sounds very silly to me. It looks like the idea that shopping centers should pay to cabs or mass transit because people are using cabs and busses to get into stores... Sure, customers will have cheaper tickets and cheaper cabs but... does it make a sense?"

Actually, its worse than you think. This approach is not designed to make tickets and cabs (internet access) more affordable. It is designed to give the owners of the cabs and busses (ISP's) greater revenue.

Re:The answer is "everywhere."

[NeutronCowboy]

AI-driven interfaces predicting user desires based on billions of aggregated and sorted decisions will reduce clutter and confusion.

They've done studies on this. And without fail, changing or intelligent UIs fared far worse in terms of how fast users got to where they needed to go. This was completely independent of how deeply nested the static UIs were.

You can actually test this yourself - how much do you like the intelligent interface in Word? I know it rarely shows me what I need. The good stuff has keyboard shortcuts that I can memorize, for the rest I want to see the entire UI, and I always expand it completely.

RICO Laws

[TwP]

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.

From the article :

[4D6963]

"Do you prefer to search for information online with Google or Yahoo? What about bargain shopping -- do you go to Amazon or eBay?"

Do you prefer to edit your code with vi or emacs?

*ducks*

Re:The answer is "everywhere."

[dnoyeb]

Good God no. Predicting what people want only works for people that don't know what they want. For people that do know it only gets in the way and becomes exceedingly frustrating. MS Word is a perfect example of this.

Been there done that

[rickb928]

Haven't we done this before? Wasn't it called AOL?

Seriously, I say let the telcos do what they want. Just don't call it Internet service.

Cause it ain't.

rick

In the end, it balances back out...

[shmlco]

Someone, somewhere, will start charging for better QOS. Someone, somewhere, will start paying for it. Then someone, somewhere, will offer the same thing at a reduced price to get the business. Eventually, someone will offer high QOS at the standard rate as a competitive advantage for using their service.

In the end, it balances back out...

Re:In the end, it balances back out...

[arivanov]

Someone somewhere has been charging for better QoS for years. Level 3 in the US has been charging for better qos for 4+ years now. It is time for the slashdot crowd to wake up and face reality. It has been done for a very long time now. I used to work in an ISP that made a living off this 8 years ago. It is beeing done and it will be done.

And you are absolutely correct, at the end it all balances out. There is as limit to what you can squeeze out of a network. If you go over it the users will eat your arse. If you do not use it you are forced to invest more in hardware and connectivity.

Once again...

[DanQuixote]

they artificially (greedily?) restrict supply instead of just meeting demand.

($#@!$#%!!!)

Re:Americentric

[Weedlekin]

Especially when the solution is simply not to bother with such topics, just as one would with
any other that covers something which is of no interest or relevance to the reader

It's time for a different kind of carrier network.

[junglicio.us]

Ethernet over powerlines. There is a huge amount of wire out there, and it's available anywhere the lights are on. Bolt on a few wireless access points and viola! No more telco's and free (as in beer) Internet access.

e-gads

[Flunitrazepam]

Putting 'e' in front of everything is really e-nnoying

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

[mcboozerilla]

I use to work for good ol' Whitacre's public relations firm, one of the biggest in the US, and my colleagues told me first-hand experiences that made my stomach churn. These people are bad. It's not paranoia. If people like you don't get off your asses and do something, we could lose all that we, collectively, have built.

Re:The answer is "everywhere."

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

Easily fixed. We can just adjust public education to make people stupid enough for this to work.

Google's bigger than they are..

[sadr]

The Bell's should be very careful about who they pick on.

BS.net trims down google's bandwidth.

Google intentionally further limits bandwidth to BS.net, and posts a FAQ that the slowdown is due to BS.net. "Please contact BS.net to get this fixed!" Convenient phone numbers are provided.

Google sends a bill to BS.net for $10 / user / month to return the service to normal speed.

Google (et al) has the content that BS.net's customers want. If there is no content, there is no BS.net.

Sorry, it *was* fought. Brand X lost.

[MacDork]

This needs to be fought.

The war's already over. We lost.

Re:Sorry, it *was* fought. Brand X lost.

[Glock27]

The war's already over. We lost.

While I don't like that ruling, it has nothing to do with this issue.

Google isn't an ISP. (Yahoo may be another matter, since they're part of a DSL co-branding deal. Is that really the central issue here?)

Re:Sorry, it *was* fought. Brand X lost.

[MacDork]

Quoth the article:

A key concern is that phone and cable companies could potentially use their power over the network to act as gatekeepers of the Internet, discriminating and limiting consumers' access to certain services so that some Web sites and online services are favored.

Now, go lobby congress for "network neutrality" while cable and phone companies lobby for a 2 tier internet and see who runs out of money first. Who's going to come to your rescue? Google? They'll like the deal. They've got the money to pay, upstarts who might take them out, don't.

Game Over

i thought the general charging scheme was...

[shoelace_822695]

i thought the general charging scheme of the Internet was that it was the downloader that paid.. always.

ie.. it shouldnt cost me any money to have content available for download.. it is the people who download my content that pay for that data...

i understand that poeple pay 'extra' to have a large bandwidth available for uploading, just as you pay more for a faster connection from your ISP. but i've cant see why you should be payaing for data you 'upload' when the end-user pays for it..

Cellphone calls

[kiwipeso]

Here in NZ, Vodafone has proposed to set a home area of 300 metres, which when your cellphone is in it, will let you call the local call area for free. (Just like a ordinary landline phone.)
If that happens, I would set the home area to the CBD and find out if people are home, what is on sale at the shops and stuff like that.

Re:The answer is "everywhere."

[saltydogdesign]

AI-driven interfaces predicting user desires based on billions of aggregated and sorted decisions will reduce clutter and confusion. Users who ever notice the interface will be unhappy.

What you are describing here is practically the exact opposite of what the Internet has thrived on to date. Clutter and confusion are why we all came here in the first place. The world you describe sounds a lot like Yugoslavia, circa 1956.