FCC Backs a Tiered Internet

Going to be extorted writes ""FCC Chief Kevin Martin yesterday gave his support to AT&T and other telcos who want to be able to limit bandwidth to sites like Google, unless those sites pay extortion fees. Martin made it clear in a speech yesterday that he supports such a a "tiered" Internet." Could this be the end of internet innovation?"

Comments

I plead the second.

[dada21]

I have a solution to fixing the FCC and it has to do with my subject line. Figure it out.

I believe the FCC is one of the most unconstitutional departments in the Federal government and completely destroys the reason why it was set up in the first place. If the airwaves are public property, why are they regulated to the point that no one but the elite can access them? How is the Internet considered public airwaves if it is run over mostly private lines?

It is time for a second Internet to come into action -- one that is voluntarily connected, one that is run over cabling (or satellite) connections that are not subsidized by any government regime. If we want it, it will happen, we just have to support the initial costs. These costs might be higher but in the long run they're lower because we won't be taxed to subsidize the costs.

I don't care much for the idea of regulating any speech -- broadcast or face-to-face. I don't see the Constitution giving the Federal government any power to regulate the airwaves (the interstate commerce clause was not meant to give the Feds power to tariff and tax, it was meant to give the Feds the power to prevent the individual states from tariffing and taxing interstate commerce).

The reason for this FCC mention is because the distribution cartels who have used copyright, airwaves regulation and subsidies for decades are now scared that their cartel will fall apart. Copyright has been antiquated by the Internet -- creating opportunities for millions of artists to distribute their artwork themselves (not needing the cartels). The subsidies for the phone companies and the old media companies have proved to be worthless as almost anyone can now afford to be not just a receiver on the mediacast network, but a sender as well. The regulations that were used to keep others from entering the market are now working against the big media companies.

This means that they want blood. They want control. They want their cartel to stay together, and the only way they can do it is through the use of force and coercion -- which is basically what the FCC is about. Maybe Google will come up with a free GoogleNet and let anyone (including competitors) connect to it. Maybe some kid in a garage will figure out a way to get a secondary network structure built, I have no idea, nor do I care, there are billions of people out there, I have faith in humanity.

The future will not be able frequencies or bandwidth or censorship or control. The future will be about freedom; I am just waiting for the day that software radios with reasonable frequency hopping methods can be used to give everyone high bandwidth at low costs without worrying about what monopoly their village lets run cable or worry about paying for someone out in Montana who can't afford their own wires run. For this, though, the FCC will need to completely vacate the airwaves. The day will come, we just have to find a solution to the FCC who keeps it all down.

I have a solution. I plead the second.

Re:I plead the second.

[Lumpy]

It is time for a second Internet to come into action -- one that is voluntarily connected, one that is run over cabling (or satellite) connections that are not subsidized by any government regime. If we want it, it will happen, we just have to support the initial costs. These costs might be higher but in the long run they're lower because we won't be taxed to subsidize the costs.


this existed before the internet and it was neat but horribly slow.

there were people that set up unix and Xenix machines at borders of LATA's (a phone number that can call two areas as a local call) that would call each other to relay email and gopher requests.

it worked great.

Getting broadband speeds without the telcos involved will be 10000% impossible as they have the governments in their back pocket and do you know anyone that can afford 5000 miles of fiber, all the light gear needed to light it up and who can pay for the right of way access for that fiber?

Honestly our ownly hope is for google to light up all that dark fiber they have been buying and put a major hurt on SBC and the other greedy bastards right where it hurts.

Re:I plead the second.

[AKAImBatman]

As another poster pointed out, the blogger is wrong here. The FCC has said the following:

In a question-and-answer period in front of the keynote audience, Martin said that "I do think the commission has the authority necessary" to enforce network neutrality violations, noting that the FCC had in fact done so in the case last year involving Madison River's blocking of Vonage's VoIP service.

"We've already demonstrated we'll take action if necessary," Martin said.

In other words, the FCC doesn't want to see the "tiered internet" design, and will slap fines on anyone who tried it. Where the confusion comes in is in this part of his speech:

However, Martin also added that he supports network operators' desires to offer different levels of broadband service at different speeds, and at different pricing -- a so-called "tiered" Internet service structure that opponents say could give a market advantage to deep-pocket companies who can afford to pay service providers for preferential treatment.

While Martin said that consumers who don't pay for higher levels of Internet service shouldn't expect to get higher levels of performance, he did say in a following press conference that "the commission needs to make sure" that there are fair-trade ways to ensure that consumers "get what they are purchasing."

What he's saying is that the FCC is fine with a broadband provider selling you a 6Mbit line at a higher cost than a 2MBit line, as long as you get what you're paying for. The AT&T plan may have resulted in you getting less bandwidth than you paid for if you failed to pay their extortion fees.

Re:I plead the second.

[a_nonamiss]

I'm not a fan of government regulation, but if you eliminate the FCC, every Tom, Dick and Harry could build an inexpensive transmitter in their basement. (With an antenna on the roof) With all those transmitters going at whatever frequency they please, nobody anywhere would be able to pick up anything. As small-government as I am, I still think that there needs to be some regulating body over the airwaves, just for the simple matter of making sure that transmitters aren't walking over each other. (BTW, regulating body doesn't necessarily need to be a government agency, but DOES need to have some authority to shut down illegal broadcasting.)

Re:I plead the second.

[Myrrh]

Oh. I was hoping when you said "plead the Second" you meant the Second Amendment.

Re:I plead the second.

[dada21]

This is not true, actually. First of all, transmitters sending more than a minimal signal are costly -- a 50,000 watt transmitter on one frequency would costs thousands a day in power. To broadcast over a wide range of frequencies would cost millions.

Secondly, I promote the idea of freq-hopping software radios that utilize technology designed to avoid interference. In my own neighborhood there are about 20 WiFi access points I can see, and I still get great wireless networking at my home. We're sharing bandwidth here, and while there may be some problems, the situation is getting better in an minimally regulated spectrum. Open up the entire spectrum the FCC monopolizes and you'll see much less interference, not more.

Thirdly, I believe in the power of the market -- the current need to design better freq-hopping transceivers is not very high due to the regulations out there. Over time, though, I believe we'll see more deregulation of various frequencies as the need for more wireless transmissions goes up. I can only hope it happens sooner rather than later.

Look at all the wasted bandwidth right now. We have digital and analog TV, digital and analog radio, cell phones, FRS, and dozens of other "regulated" bandwidths. This is all data -- and digital data is more efficient -- so why not work to slowly deregulate more and more bandwidth so more and more people can take advantage of it?

Do we NEED analog and digital TV frequencies anymore? Cable and satellite have replaced MOST people's needs for broadcast media, yet BitTorrent is starting to hurt the old media companies, too. Why not use it all for whatever data the user and the sender both need?

Re:I plead the second.

[Anonymous Coward]

Imagine a completely voluntary, decentralized, peer-to-peer network consisting of millions of individual, high-speed wireless nodes. That is the future -- the natural progression -- and the only thing that can stop it is the power of organized coercion (government). Unfortunately, everything government stands for requires a centralized infrastructure (not just with regard to networking but anything government could possibly do), and that is exactly why government will do everything it possibly can to prevent such a voluntary effort from happening.

Re:I plead the second.

[dada21]

I did.

Re:I plead the second.

[ivan256]

It is time for a second Internet to come into action -- one that is voluntarily connected, one that is run over cabling (or satellite) connections that are not subsidized by any government regime. If we want it, it will happen, we just have to support the initial costs. These costs might be higher but in the long run they're lower because we won't be taxed to subsidize the costs.

I don't care much for the idea of regulating any speech -- broadcast or face-to-face. I don't see the Constitution giving the Federal government any power to regulate the airwaves (the interstate commerce clause was not meant to give the Feds power to tariff and tax, it was meant to give the Feds the power to prevent the individual states from tariffing and taxing interstate commerce).

If your goal is to have your packets routed end to end with no interference by any third party, such a thing already exists. It's called business class service. Nobody bothers you, you don't have ports blocked, you don't get your transfer rates capped, and it's just plain internet heaven. It costs about twice as much though, and almost nobody is willing to pay. If people aren't willing to spend a little more to maintain their liberty on the internet, what makes you think they'd be willing to pay a lot more to help build a new one?

Re:I plead the second.

[BodhiCat]

This is not what the founding fathers intended when they wrote the constitution. In fact they didn't intend for us to have an internet, so we should get rid of it. We should also get rid of cars, sub-machine guns and TV sets. They also allowed slavery and didn't give the right to vote to women so we should bring back slavery and end universal sufferage. We should also wear powdered wigs and hats with buckles. After all that's what the founding fathers intended.

Re:I plead the second.

[Anonymous Coward]

plead the second. (Score:5, Insightful)
by dada21 (163177) on Thursday March 23, @10:37AM (#14980524)
(http://www.unanimocracy.com/ | Last Journal: Monday January 09, @10:55PM)

I have a solution to fixing the FCC and it has to do with my subject line. Figure it out.

I believe the FCC is one of the most unconstitutional departments in the Federal government and completely destroys the reason why it was set up in the first place.


http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1888118040/002-40 66203-5783260

Re:I plead the second.

[drp]

The key point that you are missing is this - the internet does not transmit over radio waves. Or, more correctly, the internet does not use the publicly broadcasted spectrum. The FCC's original charter was to ensure that chaos on airwaves did not happen. Somehow, they wormed their way into completely isolated means of communication like fiber optics or coax cable.

I fail to see how the FCC should have any say over anything that I as a private individual or company want to transmit over my privately owned lines, or how much I want to charge people for their use. Of course, this argument does allow for the big telcos to implement the silly double-dipping scheme where they charge both ends of the communication, but the free market exists to prevent that. If SBC/AT&T, Verizon, etc. want to imeplement this, what is stopping Google from forming their own publicly-available routed IP network?

Re:I plead the second.

[a_nonamiss]

You bring up some good points, but let's just suppose I want to be an ass. (And believe me, nothing in the Constitution prevents me from doing so.) I could set up a noise generator in my neighborhood just for the heck of it so that nobody in my neighborhood could do anything. Sure, digital frequency hopping is great, but if I lived next door to you and wanted to be a douchebag, I could, without a whole lot of effort, build a device that would knock out all of your wireless networks. A little more tinkering, and I could make it so that all you hear when you turn on the radio in the morning is Starland Vocal Band's "Afternoon Delight" on every radio in your house, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. I'm not talking about 50,000 watts of power here, just enough to get maybe 100 feet. That should be enough to get even with you for letting your cat poop in my garden. Obviously, right now, all of the above activities would be patently illegal. They would come to my house in a matter of days, if not hours, and I would be tried for breaking the law. Without some sort of regulatory body, this type of thing would be common. Again, I hate to play devil's advocate for any government agency, but I just can't see effective self-regulation in this area.

Re:I plead the second.

[timjdot]

I'm telling you... BitTorrent webserver. I anti-patented the idea along time ago on shouldexist. Distributed content will mean much less network loads. And faster loads! Put all the RAM in the world to work!

No matter what direction the FCC takes the technology genie is out of the bottle for adhoc networks. If ever an access path such as a T1 which is today $250/month can be dropped to sub-$100 then TWC and probably the rest of the networks operators will see real competition. Spelled: LOWER PRICES for the consumer.

This country was biult on competition and I think the FCC is doing a good thing with what they've done with allowing 802.11. Now phone-to-PC: that's another issue altogether! But soon (now) everyone will have IM running all the time anyways.

Folks, we are headed for a huge bandwidth crunch. Gates posit of infinite bandwidth everywhere is about like flying cars. Already TWC cable networks are sucking fumes in any heavily used neighborhoods.

I look forward to more and more bandwidth and figure people will be willing to pay a premium unless more competitino arises. Heck, something like bittorrent is THE SOLUTION: distributed content will mean less load on the network. That's what the FCC should be promoting.

TimJowers

Re:I plead the second.

[Jon Luckey]

To broadcast over a wide range of frequencies would cost millions.

No, I think Tesla coils are not that expensive. And each one can broadcast plenty of energy over a wide band just fine.

Now perhaps you'll complain that that's not broadcasting data. No, its not. But it is consuming bandwidth. And radio interference regulations is one of those things that goes out the window for if the FCC were to just disappear as you seem to wish.

Lots of things become cheaper if you just don't give a flying fark about how RFI affects someone elses data transmissions. That's their problem, right?

Apparently thats the way you want it.

Re:I plead the second.

[SydShamino]

Unless the broadcast is strong enough to cross a state line at some threshold power (arbitrarily set by congress or the courts), then it is none of the FCC's business.*

Let the states regulate broadcasts that are only available inside state lines.

* Exceptions for national defense would allow the government to block transmitters at certain frequencies, just as they would effectively control major commercial broadcasts in some states (like Rhode Island) because it isn't possible to keep the signal from crossing state lines with sufficient power to cause interference.

Re:I plead the second.

[lbmouse]

"...what is stopping Google from forming their own publicly-available routed IP network?"

Nothing. More proof the Larry & Sergey have a crysta ball (or at least sold their souls).

Re:I plead the second.

[Khyber]

Excuse me, no transfer rate caps? Why is my business class BellSouth DSL still only 384 kbit up, then?

Re:I plead the second.

[Anonymous Coward]

http://ronja.twibright.com/

Re:I plead the second.

[jandrese]

The internet is ALWAYS just about to run out of bandwidth (well in a few years). I remember back in 1996 or so when it was real bad. The thing is, the internet isn't static. People are always upgrading bits here and there. It's not like we don't have the technology for much faster connections, it's just so new that most people havn't deployed it yet.

That said, there may be a couple of lean years in our future. Back in 1996 when bandwidth started getting scarce while the demand was shooting up, the various telcos were stepping all over each other to build as much infrastructure as possible. Around 2000 or so we were greatly overbuilt in many areas and combined with the dot.com boom it put the brakes on new building. 6 years later and the telcos are naturally reluctant to go on a big building spree again, so they're taking it slow, and it may end up being a bit too slow depending on how much the internet grows (although growth has been flattening out in the first world, so perhaps it won't be a problem after all).

Re:I plead the second.

[osoese]

I agree with a wireless alternative to fiber. Why not? Its time for progress anyway. However, remember the FCC has control over the airwaves also, so they will most likely aim to shut down such an alternative solution to their regulatory practices. What are we supposed to do in a Catch-22 situation like this? I just find it interesting that every industry that has little government regulation over it seems to boom. Once the regulation starts the industry seems to falter. The internet technologies, albeit developed by the governent, have evolved so rapidly that it has been hard to regulate, and look at how much that has done for the economy (despite the bubble a few years back).

Re:I plead the second.

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with your plan is that the government is the only entity that can compel people to sell their property despite irrationality. Want to lay cable down your street? You're going to hit some housewife who refuses to let you dig up her garden for any amount of money. Now what?

The reason the Libertarians haven't figured out how to do any kind of long distance property-cutting projects without government intervention is because the economic rules you live by require rational actors, and nothing is more irrational than a woman who planted her garden where you want your wire/road/whatever. Of course, irrationality's got nothing on rationality. Imagine if you started building a road, and suddenly the next property owner over decides that his land's gonna cost you a million dollars a square foot. The one on the other end of your road wisens up and does the same. Now you've got a road from nowhere to nowhere, and unless you can come up with more money than Bill Gates, that's how its going to stay.

Re:I plead the second.

[aztec rain god]

I live in Montana, you insensitive clod! We're already stuck with being the last place to get any kind of improvement in service, we pay fantastically high rates for mediocre service, if any, and you would have us just cut off altogether? No thanks, man.

Re:I plead the second.

[clydemaxwell]

I have set up line of sight networking for organizations, free satellite broadcast connections (slow) between cities, and neighborhood-to-neighboorhood cabling for free connections to friends. the difficulty lies in the fact that what people want out of the web is typically the same as what can be googled -- random data, websites, etc. which requires everyone to be on the same internet. And if you even got all the major ISPs to link up with an alternate DNS scheme separate from government control or inclusion, they'd still find a way to get in and manage.

Re:I plead the second.

[Kelz]

Imminent Domain. *cackles*

Re:I plead the second.

[Firehed]

Well they've always been doing that. Paying more to have more bandwidth for every website is one thing (or else switches from pre to 9600 baud to 28k to 56k to broadband to beyond would have had to happen overnight worldwide, effectively impossible), but charging whatever sites more to be delivered to surfers faster is entirely another. Which is the one that they support? Not having the first prevents progress; the second is anti-competitive.

So, it sounds like some blogger misread "consumers" as "companies" and then got slashdotted.

This is why we need secure transmissions all around. Not for security, but rather to make sure that ISPs aren't saying "the receiving site isn't paying us, so your data is going to be sent out slower". Obscure the transmissions and we're set. Well, sort of. Ideally, it'd be entirely direct-transmission between servers and users (rather than being relayed between a dozen servers before you end up where you should be), or even more structured like a home network where you just plug in and have aceess to everything else (which is sort of what we have, we're just paying to plug in, and pay considerably more to do so with a higher speed cap. We've just got the telcos being greedy bastards trying to suck every penny out of their customers and then working with other megacorps to put artifical limits on progress so the **AAs can continue taking advantage of us.

Re:I plead the second.

[CastrTroy]

But Google already pays for their bandwidth, and so does the End User (person browsing the web). What they want to do is set up toll-bridges in the middle so that you have to pay not only for the stuff that leaves your servers, but also for the entire network it travels over. Even though Google or the end user has no control where the routers send the information in between. I would hate for Verizon to slow down traffic to Google, and then find out that my access is slowed down because the traffic is routed through verizon even though they aren't my provider.

Re:I plead the second.

[dada21]

Best. Book. Ever.

A bit long, but one of the funniest pieces of fiction I've ever read. I've been thinking of investing in some pigs for the yard, actually.

Re:I plead the second.

[Anonymous Coward]

While we're waiting for GNet (Beta), here's a serious question:

Would it be possible to do a new global open internet as a giant VPN running on the existing network infrastructure? (yes, I realize this is kind of the darknet concept, but let's think big for a minute...)

Seems like we could set something up where traffic was encrypted and obfuscated so that Bell$outh couldn't tell WHERE it was going, the gummint (not to mention the MPAA) couldn't tell WHAT it was after it left your doorstep.

In a perfect world, perhaps it'd be pretty much peer-to-peer with some anonymizing agents in between, and could be made to look like http traffic so it wouldn't be so easily blocked.

This might get us the status quo back; if Bell$outh can't tell what's going across the lines, their tiers collapse.

Re:I plead the second.

[Mantrid]

That's just SMALL business class, they're talking about T1's etc. However the contracts are huge for these things, could be all sorts of exceptions in there.

Re:I plead the second.

[Fulcrum of Evil]

A little more tinkering, and I could make it so that all you hear when you turn on the radio in the morning is Starland Vocal Band's "Afternoon Delight" on every radio in your house, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

A bit of power and you could make it play even when the radio's off.

Re:I plead the second.

['nother poster]

Did you mean Eminent Domain, or am I missing the joke?

Re:I plead the second.

[vsimon]

This cycle is never going to go away. We'll create a second grassroots Internet. Someone will sell a service to set it up for non techie folks for a small fee. That service will become a company, catering to the masses. At this point it becomes part of another cartel the very antithesis of what it began as in the first place.

Re:I plead the second.

[Anonymous Coward]

The internet technologies, albeit developed by the governent

Government's "contribution" to networking may have been the first (due only to government's unique ability to achieve fund its special interests through coercion), but is insignificant in the grand scheme of things, and especially over the long run into the future. What defines the internet today is millions of individual voluntary efforts, not a single large coercive effort.

Same goes for space exploration and space travel. Government may have been the first (again due only to its unique "right" to employ coercion), but in 50-100 years, government's technology will have been far superceded and obsoleted by voluntary, decentralized efforts.

Re:I plead the second.

[Intron]

Good analysis up to "digital data is more efficient". Analog signals take less bandwidth to transfer the same amount of information. The reason is fundamental. Digital signals assume that a signal is at one of several discrete levels, while analog assumes that the level is continuous. Limiting the levels throws away some of the potential information in the signal.

For example, analog TV signals use 4.5MHz of bandwidth, are uncompressed and have 6 MHz separation. A standard TV 480i signal starts at over 200 MBits/sec and uses MPEG-2 lossy compression to fit into the same 6Mhz channel spacing. Decompression magnifies any noise in the signal to cause artifacts in multiple frames and pixelation on the display. For some source material there is mosaicing even in noise-free transmission.

So why use it? Digital allows encryption, DRM and multi-tiered access controls.

Re:I plead the second.

[Anonymous Coward]

Internet could very well use public airwaves if one sets up a transport layer to do so.
Why not? Do you understand the TCP/IP stack?
If you did you'd realize that what you said is foolish. Ever hear of a wireless router?

Re:I plead the second.

[xmedar]

Oh yes, pleading with the US government, what will that get you? A SmartBomb(TM) down your chimney? Sent to Gitmo? You know what they say if you're not with them, you're against them, pleading will achieve precisely zero, zilch, nada except to put a damn big target on your arse. You want a realistic solution? Flee your 3rd world tyrrany and move to a 1st world country, that has freedom, human rights and democracy.

Re:I plead the second.

[bigpat]

What he's saying is that the FCC is fine with a broadband provider selling you a 6Mbit line at a higher cost than a 2MBit line, as long as you get what you're paying for. The AT&T plan may have resulted in you getting less bandwidth than you paid for if you failed to pay their extortion fees.

That is very good, thanks for actually reading it. I think it is important that we are clear that providing their actual customers with different levels of service based on price should be perfectly acceptible.

But it is the Bullshit about ISPs purposefully increasing the latency of content and service providers so they can extort money out of big companies is what is unnacceptable. People are already paying for access to the whole of the Internet and bandwidth, ISPs should not be double billing content and service providers for being allowed to do business with their customers. If the ISPs want to come to some business arrangement to provide better access to some content through some distributed colocation or some other means I don't think we are going to be able to stop that. But this purposeful selective throttling down of packets by certain other companies must be considered an illegal business practice. The line might get fuzzy, so I think we may need to put a regulatory stop to QoS packet handling in general. But I could see legitamite reasons to do QoS, so I am not sure how a regulation could be effectively worded to prevent the practice that we all know is bad for the market.

Re:I plead the second.

[Anonymous Coward]

the solution to this is to deregulate law enforcement as well: the fact that your neighbour can buy a shotgun for less than you paid for your transmitter would perhaps make you reconsider your actions?

Re:I plead the second.

[jonnythan]

I have decided that the only reason you get modded up is because those doing the moderation simply don't read your posts.

Re:I plead the second.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you think that the government didn't have anything to do with the rise of the Internet, you're on crack. The breakup of Ma Bell was a big factor, and its recent reconstruction as part of the consolidation in the telco industry is why you're seeing the telco's have the monopoly power to pull off this extortion. This didn't happen in the 90's because the FCC was being run by people who didn't let it happen, not because the market magically prevented it from not happening.

Re:I plead the second.

[grimwell]

I think what you are describing is Onion routing. Go setup Tor and help out. :)

Re:I plead the second.

[hazem]

First of all, transmitters sending more than a minimal signal are costly -- a 50,000 watt transmitter on one frequency would costs thousands a day in power. To broadcast over a wide range of frequencies would cost millions.

Have you ever heard of a spark-gap transmitter? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spark-gap_transmitter They can produce a tremendous amount of broad-band "noise".

And don't forget that most electronics devices with an FCC ID are required to not generate "too much" RF interference. Imagine how much cheaper all your electronics could be if that didn't have to be factored in?

Re:I plead the second.

[DaBigEnchilada]

I didn't realize impossibility could be expressed as a percent. How do the scales of impossibility and possibility measure up? If something is 40% impossible, is it then 60% possible? :-) Just being a smart-ass...

Re:I plead the second.

[SComps]

I would then teach my cat to poop on your car seat. *grin*

The entertainment factor of such activities are endless. If you have a reasonably trainable cat that is. Do such cats exist?

Re:I plead the second.

[Anonymous Coward]

They already *ARE* double-billing for service, because they own the lines! The consumer pays for access to the network, and the content provider pays to be connected as well. While the largest of the large get into peering agreements, those are still a cost for a service (even if it comes out to be no net change).

What they want to do is TRIPLE-bill. I pay to get on the internet from home. $$$ to them. You pay to connect your server to the network. $$$ to them. Now that you're successful, they want to charge you so "your deliveries arrive on time..." $$$ to them AGAIN.

Re:I plead the second.

[Anonymous Coward]

The only "legitimate" reason to do QoS is when you've sold 500 people 1mbit connections and you only have a 400mbit pipe to upstream. Banning QoS outright would put an end to the sale of unlimited* internet** plans at 6mbps***(1)+ and force companies to either upgrade their gear or sell only what they have.

Re:I plead the second.

[ChrisA90278]

You don't need 5,000 miles of fiber. Use radio or a 100BaseT cable. What would happen if every house in a city had a wifi router that could communicated with eight nearby houses? You would have a very dense mesh with unbelievable bandwidth. Start a small club where every member has the gaol to create 8 100Mbps links with eight other club memebers. Everyone is required to route trafic. All packets have encrypted payloads so no one can look at anyone else's mail, porn or whatever.

Re:I plead the second.

[tzanger]

It is time for a second Internet to come into action -- one that is voluntarily connected, one that is run over cabling (or satellite) connections that are not subsidized by any government regime.

L0pht Heavy Industries had quite a bit of information about this. They called it guerilla.net. It seems to be gone now, though. All 9600 baud ham, wifi and optical links... Very cool idea but the problem with it is the same problem that faces amateur radio these days. Lack of general interest.

It's sad. There is a lot of good that can come from this kind of thing, but people don't give a shit unless it has something to do with the latest fads on gossip on TV.

Re:I plead the second.

[e_slarti]

Or, you can start projects like Utopia in your own area:

http://www.utopianet.org/corporate.htm

Utopia is a project in Utah that looks at web service like a utility rather than a corporate-controlled entity. I personally like the idea and I think we should take the future of the net this way rather than a business oriented way. At least for household access.

Re:I plead the second.

[Anonymous Coward]

'..I could make it so that all you hear when you turn on the radio in the morning is Starland Vocal Band's "Afternoon Delight" on every radio in your house, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week...'

Your ideas are intriguing and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

Re:I plead the second.

[jank1887]

purposefully increasing the latency of content and service providers so they can extort money out of big companies is what is unnacceptable

By the way, do any current RFC's apply to such behaviour? Either for, neutral, or against such operation on the net?

Re:I plead the second.

['nother poster]

Two words. Spread spectrum.

Generate all the noise you want.

Re:I plead the second.

[camt]

The AT&T plan may have resulted in you getting less bandwidth than you paid for if you failed to pay their extortion fees.

The way I understandd it, you would be getting less throughput than you should be able to get based on what you paid for, if your content provider failed to pay their extortion fees.

Do I have it backwards?

Re:I plead the second.

[Anonymous Coward]

Honestly our ownly hope is for google to light up all that dark fiber they have been buying and put a major hurt on SBC and the other greedy bastards right where it hurts.

p0wned by a typo! It's like you're saying:"Help us, Googly Wan Kenoobly! You're our p0wnly hope!"

Re:I plead the second.

[fyngyrz]

American citizens are getting what we deserve.

The FCC censors nationally on the basis of value that at a minimum, should be community based if we look at mundane law, but if we look at good supreme sourt decisions, should not be at all.

The FCC intentionally prevents low-power stations from operating, which directly muzzles the populace.

The FCC interferes with privately owned communications hardlines (cable, Internet, telephone) all resources that are not limited by anything other than commerce issues.

Sadly, the FCC is just a symptom of all the other major ills our government has developed because out system does not work.

Our country is mutating from a nation on-track for increasing freedom into a dump for conservative and corporate agendas.

What needs to be done is obvious; but Americans no longer have the will.

Re:I plead the second.

[ScuzzMonkey]

I would venture to guess that Google, et al, already have "business class service"... it doesn't seem to be doing them much good against these telco proposals to cap rates, interfere with service, etc.

Whatever service you think you are getting for those extra rates, realize it's still at the whim of the provider, and just like they are proposing to do to these other entities, they will happily find a way to jack you for more if they see an opportunity to do so.

Re:I plead the second.

[duffbeer703]

You don't need a 50,000 Watt transmitter to intefere with things. What if I decide that some talk-show host violates my religous beliefs somehow... I could setup a few low-wattage transmitters and screw up the signal in a relatively small area just for kicks.

WiFi is regulated as well -- the signal strength is capped by FCC regs. If everyone was able to crank up the power of their access points, you'd have difficulty using WiFi in a populated area.

Re:I plead the second.

[LordOfTheNoobs]

"If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever."
1984 - george orwell

Re:I plead the second.

[Anonymous Coward]

what, sold too soon? ;-) It's called an investment. For gambling, see here.

Re:I plead the second.

[CagedBear]

a 50,000 watt transmitter on one frequency...

When conditions are right ham radio operators can communicate across continents on a few watts using simple low-band radios and home made antennas.

Sure, modern gadgets use high frequencies but still a couple hundred watts is plenty to wreak havoc in your neighborhood and doesn't cost much at all.

Re:I plead the second.

[jafac]

I have no idea, nor do I care, there are billions of people out there, I have faith in humanity.

There are also billions of ants.

They're easy enough to exterminate in huge quantities through a can of Raid, or a boot heel. Humans aren't much different.

2nd Amendment? Yeah right. Let me know when the 2nd Amendment guarantees your freedom from annihilation by a B-52 pilot flying 60,000 feet above you, who can't even see your house, but who can blast it to splinters and you to quivering bits of hamburger at the touch of a button.

Your 2nd Amendment rights are about as good as your 4th Amendment rights, or your 1st Amendment rights.

Re:I plead the second.

[_Hiro_]

When one pleads the fifth, they're normally declaring their intent to use their 5th Amendment Rights.

So I would presume pleading the second is the same, but for the 2nd Amendment Rights.

Re:I plead the second.

[Mr. Underbridge]

The FCC's original charter was to ensure that chaos on airwaves did not happen. Somehow, they wormed their way into completely isolated means of communication like fiber optics or coax cable.

Perhaps becuase they're the Federal *Communications* Commission? You were expecting perhaps the EPA?

Re:I plead the second.

[_Hiro_]

Oops! Missed parent post.

Re:I plead the second.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok I am posting AC to flame slashdot about this story.

This was posted on digg a few hours ago, same subject line and everything. If slashdot is going to be a filter for digg the EDITORS, FOR FUCKS SAKE FACT CHECK.

Here is how it goes.
1. IS TFA A blog?
    If so read blog post + linked article
    else read linked article
2. Does the blurb = TFA?
3. Does TFA = other source?

Really, it took me 5 minutes of my lunch break to fact check and figure out this wasn't accurate.

In fact, the article that the blog links to SAYS 1)AT&T will not do tied internet and 2) the FCC will enforce net neutrality and has in the past.

Re:I plead the second.

[Anonymous Coward]

Honestly our ownly hope is for google to light up all that dark fiber they have been buying and put a major hurt on SBC and the other greedy bastards right where it hurts.

Or have Internet^2 (That's plainly so much better than plain old Internet2) simply run on volunteer power, at no cost, with an efficient and semi-self-organizing mesh network that can be run over radio based wireless networks, point-to point optical communication systems, fiber, trans-continental fiber, cell-phones, or whatever is available.

At first, a gateway to The Internet through Internet^2 would be provided at a cost, probably from a local ISP, and the benefit might be faster speeds or what have you. Eventually enough services and companies woulb be influenced to have an Internet^2 presence, and it would not be necessary to use Internet^2 as a conduit to The Internet. Once that happens, it would domino effect and eventually supercede The Internet all together.

Re:I plead the second.

[dbc001]

Wouldn't the market just develop it's own solution to the problem? I mean, if no one could pick anything up, why would anyone bother to broadcast? What would happen if the solution were allowed to evolve naturally?

Re:I plead the second.

[Kadin2048]

What would happen if every house in a city had a wifi router that could communicated with eight nearby houses?

You'd saturate the band's three available non-interfering channels, and have horrible interference problems. The 2.4GHz ISM band just doesn't have enough space on it for municipal WiFi in a mesh networking arrangement, at least not in a high-density situation. It only takes a few people with messy transmitters that put out bad signal or use too much power, and you'll drop the S/N ratio for everyone else trying to use that channel/band-region all over the neighborhood.

I've lived in apartment buildings where every 2nd or 3rd person had a WL gateway set up, and the result was that it was impossible to find an empty channel, and you got far reduced range out of your own equipment because of all the interference. It just raises the noise floor up when you have that many transmitters working in that close proximity to each other, both space-wise and frequency-wise.

For something like that to work we'd need more frequencies -- like some of the UHF TV ones, for instance -- but fat chance getting any of them from the FCC. They're going to be auctioned off to the highest bidder, just like everything else at that office.

Re:I plead the second.

[Anonymous Coward]

I fail to see how the FCC should have any say over anything that I as a private individual or company want to transmit over my privately owned lines, or how much I want to charge people for their use.

If your private lines cross state lines, Congress has the authority, legal standing, and power to regulate it. They have generally delegated the enforcement of that regulation to the Executive, which manifests it as the FCC.

Re:I plead the second.

[Anonymous Coward]

Best. Book. Ever.

A bit long, but one of the funniest pieces of fiction I've ever read. I've been thinking of investing in some pigs for the yard, actually.


If you liked Unintended Consequences by John Ross, check out Matt Bracken's Enemies Foreign and Domestic. You can read the first 18 chapters or so for free at http://enemiesforeignanddomestic.com/excerpts.htm

While UC was an interesting historical novel, the main character was too perfect. Like John Ryan from the Tom Clancy novels, Henry Bowman was obviously the author's alter-ego who walked across water to save us all.

And I see that you've been modded from +5 Insightful to +2 Overrated Flamebait. What do you expect on Slashdot? You should have said that you blamed Fox News for the Patriot Act and how much you love the ACLU, or something like that...

Re:I plead the second.

['nother poster]

No worries. I got the OP's joke about the second amendment, it was the reply, to which I replied, that left me confused.

Re:I plead the second.

[dada21]

Eh, it happens. I'd love to see a slashdot feature to track a post's moderation over the first few hours, that would be fun :)

I actually have a copy of Bracken's book in my library but haven't had time to read it. Maybe I'll make the time.

Your thoughts on UC are accurate, but I still love the book. Ross seems to be a bit of a weirdo in real life and his site hasn't been updated in almost a year -- I'm interested in why he hasn't continued writing.

Re:I plead the second.

[mike2R]

but the free market exists to prevent that

I'd say the free market is what happens when you prevent that. Monopoly, oligarcy and cartels are a far more natural state of affairs than free competition.

Re:I plead the second.

[Anonymous Coward]

Until I set up a Marx generator and a focused antenna. Then I could driect enough energy your way to ensure that no electronics in your house survived.

Re:I plead the second.

[ivan256]

Whatever service you think you are getting for those extra rates, realize it's still at the whim of the provider, and just like they are proposing to do to these other entities, they will happily find a way to jack you for more if they see an opportunity to do so.

I agree. What I'm saying is that users aren't willing to pay more for less restrictions.

Re:I plead the second.

[Anonymous Coward]

Chaos on the cable == UDP.

Re:I plead the second.

[2short]

Spread spectrum is great for dealing with random noise, because the signal gets through on the less noisy frequencies. It doesn't do squat vs. intentional jamming, when the jammer is presumably going to generate wide spectrum noise in any case to avoid needing to know what frequency you're on.

While I support less spectrum regulation, the parent is correct, in a no regulation at all scenario, one person wanting to be a jerk can easily ruin things for many others.

Re:I plead the second.

[Squirmy McPhee]

Let the states regulate broadcasts that are only available inside state lines.

That would be tough to do, IMO. For one thing, AM radio stations often carry much farther at night than they do during the day -- does such a station only get regulated at night? And since atmospheric conditions can change from night to night, how does the station know when it has throttled back its power level enough?

Also, what about the international treaties that divided up the frequency spectrum to begin with? If broadcasts from Michigan cross the border into Canada, but not into another U.S. state, does the FCC have jurisdiction? Conversely, suppose a broadcaster in Michigan decides to use what are now typically AM radio frequencies for television and an AM radio broadcast from Canada interferes. Does the broadcaster have any recourse?

Then there's the hardware issue. Does anybody really want a TV that only works in Iowa?

Re:I plead the second.

[Jesus_666]

Don' be ridiculous. Humans don't train cats, cats train humans.

Re:I plead the second.

[WhiplashII]

Actually, the original poster was right - digital signals are more efficient. What you state is true, but what you miss are error correcting codes. Using error correcting codes you can get extremely close to the theoretical maximum throughput on any channel.

Obviously, lossy compression is not pretty sometimes - but if you sent the same information (the analog 4 MHz signal digitized, for example) a digital channel will almost always beat an analog one (the only time analog is better is at very good signal to noise and only allowing realistic digital encoding, such as limiting the number of levels to 64).

Re:I plead the second.

[SydShamino]

For one thing, AM radio stations often carry much farther at night than they do during the day -- does such a station only get regulated at night?

Because of the nature of AM broadcasts, and the need for AM superchannels, they would need to be regulated by the FCC. I specifically had them in mind when I wrote this post earlier.

If broadcasts from Michigan cross the border into Canada, but not into another U.S. state, does the FCC have jurisdiction?

The constitution also gives the federal government control of international issues, so again this would be another case where the FCC can retain some control.

Then there's the hardware issue. Does anybody really want a TV that only works in Iowa?

Do you actually think any hardware manufacturer would do this with a broadcast-type medium? The hardware manufacturers and the states would agree on set frequencies, most likely the frequencies already in use for such broadcasts.

Just because the states control something, it doesn't mean the states cannot get together and coordinate. This is still sufficiently different from the federal government regulating arbitrarily in ways not authorized by the constitution. Heck, because of the need to coordinate at state and internation boundaries, the FCC would still be in on these talks - but as a participant, not a dictator.

Then the big advantage is that states control who uses each part of the spectrum, after it has been divided. Some states might choose to let 100 private, low-power broadcasters transmit in the same bandwidth that another state lets three high-power superstations, who bleed into neighboring slots. The "low power FM stations" goal of the FCC could be realized in states that choose to allow it. Moreover, the FCC would no longer have regulatory control over the content of those broadcasts. Some states might create more restrictive controls, but some states would be more lenient. If obscenity and indecency are supposed to be set by the community standards, why not let the communities set the standards?

Re:I plead the second.

[BoneFlower]

It certainly needs to exist, but serious reform is necesary.

Re:I plead the second.

[Intron]

What do you mean by "more efficient" if not use of bandwidth? Use of ECC reduces the available bandwidth by the amount of redundancy. This comes directly off the theoretical maximum for the channel.

As for low SNR, I personally prefer analog snow to the screen breaking up into longer-lasting little squares, which is what I see on digital TV transmissions. Maybe that's just me.

Re:I plead the second.

[smbarbour]

Come on now! You aren't thinking of the best solution here. Your "noise" transmitter idea doesn't have enough focus to it. You have the problem of all of your stuff being affected as well (as well as your other neighbors). What you truly need is a highly directional aural transmission system (the type that "Minority Report" used) pumping out 150 dB of "Afternoon Delight". That way, you don't hear it, your other neighbors don't hear it, the cops don't hear it when they do show up, but your target can definately hear it. (Just remember to shut it off when the cops do show up, before they hear the evidence.)

Skyrockets in flight. Afternoon delight.

Re:I plead the second.

[voxelman]

The key point that your missing is that to be able to run wires everywhere and anywhere the common carriers have to be able to take their wires across your property. This easment, as it is called, is regulated much the same way as the airwaves. Access to these easements is regulated by a combination of your local city, state and the federal governement. As another poster has mentioned the feds get involved when common carriers want to cross state lines.

Re:I plead the second.

[Kadin2048]

Two words: spark gap.

Before the advent of modern radios -- before the advent of what we now consider to be basically prehistoric radios, even -- people had transmitters that weren't specific to particular frequencies: they transmit basically on all frequencies, simultaneously. (This isn't precisely true, the geometry of your antenna and other equipment have characteristics that make it more efficient at some frequencies than others, but it's pretty close.)

You can make a hell of a lot of noise with one of those; more than enough to cause front-end overload in all of your neighbors' receivers. And once you do that, it doesn't really matter what sort of fancy frequency-hopping or spread-spectrum stuff they have.

I think the FCC is corrupt as hell; short of maybe that Congressman who got busted with the "bribe menu" a while ago, I can't think of a more thoroughly bought-and-paid-for section of our government. However, it does serve a function, and the radio spectrum (the whole EM spectrum, really) is a public resource; what we need are people who actually believe in protecting it and using it for the greatest good, instead of parceling it off and selling or leasing it to the highest bidder.

Re:I plead the second.

[ADRA]

Rebuke on your interpretation:

"However, Martin also added that he supports network operators' desires to offer different levels of broadband service at different speeds and at different pricing"

Here he's saying he wants to do something for ISPs. One would assume that the ISPs will gain something out of this, not remain the status quo. This wouldn't be news if he said everything was staying the same now would it.

- a so-called "tiered" Internet service -
A "so-called tiered internet servce" can refer to the customer's raw access, it can refer to the service provider's access, or it could also infer the interconnection between the two. This line doesn't alone tell us what part of 'internet service' the's refering to.

"structure that opponents say could give a market advantage to deep-pocket companies who can afford to pay service providers for preferential treatment"

Why, oh why would anyone be complaining about deep pockets swaying 'preferential treatment' if this had no connection to tiered inter-connection, not end-point access. This line clearly says that opponents of the above two lines see this as anti-competitive.

"While Martin said that consumers who don't pay for higher levels of Internet service shouldn't expect to get higher levels of performance, he did say in a following press conference that "the commission needs to make sure" that there are fair-trade ways to ensure that consumers "get what they are purchasing.""

In other words, how can the ISPs offer tiered inter-connection without this being a violation of the Consumer-ISP agreements that the consumer agreed to when they signed up for internet access. If the ISP said their bandwith was 1.5Mbs, but the ISP explicitly filters that down to 200kbs to google, the ISP is violating their agreement to offer 1.5Mbs service to their customer. Thats the issue I believe they "get what they are purchasing." that he's refering to.

Re:I plead the second.

[Anonymous Coward]

Getting broadband speeds without the telcos involved will be 10000% impossible as they have the governments in their back pocket and do you know anyone that can afford 5000 miles of fiber, all the light gear needed to light it up and who can pay for the right of way access for that fiber?

As an ISP and small CLEC, I can't begin to tell you how wrong you are. First, the majority of backbone providers are not associated with the Bells, so the Internet exists even without the Bells. No ISP needs to build out more fiber than is required to get to one of these providers without using the Bells - which they are doing in record numbers. It is easy to become a CLEC and once you become one you don't have to pay for the public right-of-way execpt for state and local taxes. Lighting the fiber is cheaper than you think - I just lighted 18 miles at 1 Gbps for under $2000.

No, the hard part is getting ISP's to cooperate with each other. They firmly believe, and rightly so, that you don't put your business in your competitors hands. The Bells taught them that.

The real problem is end users that think "our only hope is for google ..." etc. No, I don't think so. It's as bad as Bush believing our only hope to rise obove #13 in broadband in the world is by giving the Bells whatever they want. Google is not a white knight. But as they say, "My enemy's enemy is my friend", so I welcome Google into the battle.

Even though I live on the other side of the country, I think New York City is a good example of what can be good. In NYC you will find thousands and thousands of specialty shops with a rich variety of choices and services. Imagine if they were all Wal-Marts? Where would variety be then? How many inovative products would never see shelf space? Even if specialty shops cost a bit more, isn't it a good idea to support them and preserve them? NYC seems to think so. So why are you buying your Internet service from the Bells and the cable companies? The smaller ISP's have more services and better support. Isn't that worth preserving?

Have you tried getting a TV repaired. Back in the 60's and 70's I was a TV repairman. Repair never paid all that well, but, hey, you sell TV's, you should repair them. When people started buying TV's from department stores, TV repair shops couldn't make enough money to stay in business and folded. So now you can't get your TV repaired. And all to save $10. Notice the decrease in computer repair shops? In the 80's there were nearly ten times as many as their are now. Where will you get your computer repaired in 10 years? If you need a static IP address at home in a couple years where are you going to get one? From the Bells or the cable company? Yah, right. Why you wouldn't get around it is another story soon to be told.

Re:I plead the second.

[ChrisA90278]

Sorry I meant "wifi" in a generic way. The links could be wired or us a 100 feet of fiber or one could use some very directional (20+ db gain) antenna and solve the bandwidth saturation problem that way. So to be more clear: "each house would have the goal to establish 8 POINT TO POINT LINKS with other nearby houses" Yes I do agree with you that using a common "witreless router" would be a dumb way to do this and would not work anyway as I doubt those little routers handle dynamic routing well enough.

Re:I plead the second.

[enjerth]

Overselling bandwidth is a common practice. It's acceptable because most users don't use anywhere near the bandwidth they've paid for. Someone else gets to use it then. But when the users collectively start to consume the full bandwidth available on a regular basis, the service provider HAD BETTER GET THEIR ASS INTO GEAR AND ACQUIRE MORE BANDWIDTH to support what they sold.

The QoS they've proposed has nothing to do with that. It's more like you've paid for 5mbps upload (as a server/content provider) but you're throttled to 128kbps per connection unless you pay the QoS tax. So it doesn't matter what bandwidth your customers have, none of them can download (from you) at speeds greater than 2-3 times that of a 56k dialup modem.

Re:I plead the second.

[Panaflex]

Not sure where you got your numbers, but standard DV mpeg2 rates for 480i are 25 Mbps video and 1.5Mbps for audio(which is PCM - uncompressed).

That's some pretty fat encoding too.. I'm sure you could cook it down quite a bit with todays much better mpeg2 encoders - the standard says you eat 25MBps though anyway.

Re:I plead the second.

[braindead_in]

the second internet will be formed by peer to peer networks which use mesh networking as thier backbone. once mesh networks spread, there will be no role left for the telcos!

Re:I plead the second.

[braindead_in]

the technology to cancel out interference is already there. in fact, you can use the interference to your benifit!

Re:I plead the second.

[AKAImBatman]

I have no idea what you're trying to get at. Mr. Martin was pretty clear that if you pay for 1.5MBits, the FCC will enforce that you get 1.5MBits. If the provider tries to filter you down to less based on QoS (no matter which side of the network you're on), he's going to slap them with a hefty fine. Period, end of story.

Re:I plead the second.

[$1uck]

I don't get it... would you entrust the public highways city streets etc to private corporations? I don't see why the "information highway" should be any different. The transmission lines for this information has to cross all sorts of boundaries, private and public. It should belong to the people in much the same way streets/highways do now. If someone wants to lay down a toll road, go for it if they can do it with out using eminent domain. The internet is becoming every bit as important to "free markets" as actual roads are. If neither is readily available to the public there is no free market.

Re:I plead the second.

[colmore]

Actually if there's one thing that late 20th century warfare has shown it's that a determined, armed, small group of people (especially in an urban or forrested setting) can effectively resist the control of a heavily armed occupant. You may not be able to fight against an enemy who only wants to see you wiped out, but if they're attempting to impose some sort of order on you, you can fight back very effectively with hit-and-run and guerilla tactics.

If guns are illegal only the police will have guns.

Re:I plead the second.

['nother poster]

The hell it doesn't apply in intentional jamming scenerios. That is one of the things it is designed to do. Be resitant to jamming.

Re:I plead the second.

[_Hiro_]

So I caught, but not until after I replied.

So it was my reply's reply that I hoped you saw, you see.

Re:I plead the second.

[Chanc_Gorkon]

The regulation is so that these frequencies and services stay usable. Anyone has free access to airwaves that they arelicensed for. Get a ham license and you have more frequencies then about 90 precent of people out there. The FCC is doign a great job in my opinion. The FCC's regs are the reason my cell and my wifi are workign as well as they are.

Re:I plead the second.

[2short]

Spread spectrum is resistant to noise and to selective jamming (it's hard for me to jam you, and not just all RF).

If the power of my transmitter multiplied by it's distance from your receiver is greater than the same number for the transmitter you want to receive, and I broadcast noise on all the frequencies you use, you will be jammed; no magic tech will save you. (Well, maybe a highly directional antenna, to effectively change the distances, but I digress) As the example in question seems to involve jamming ones next-door neighbor vs a distant transmitter, it shouldn't take all that much power.

Re:I plead the second.

[WhiplashII]

Efficiency is a function of both bandwidth and SNR - what you want to Google for is "Nyquist". Essentially if you have a given SNR, as you increase bandwidth to infinite, the amount of data you can send does not go to infinity. The simple way to see it (without any math) is that as you increase the bandwidth, in addition to being able to fit more signal in you also get far more noise, and eventually the noise growth (which is roughly linear) outweighs the bandwidth growth (which is less than linear). Conversely, if you can take the SNR to zero but hold bandwidth steady, you can theoretically get an infinite amount of information transfered at 0 SNR. (The easy way to see this is that you can feed the signal into a perfect ADC, and you can always add more bits of resolution).

It is a very interesting theory/law, with very interesting effects. One of them is that you can tell exactly what the theoretical maximum information flow rate for a given channel is - and you can come very close to these using error correcting codes, as I said previously.

What you are discussing, about optimal methods of translating signals for humans, is quite true - big error squares is far worse than a fuzzy image, because a human can ignore the fuzziness far easier than blockiness. But that is really just an artifact of MPEG compression, which is irrelevant to this discussion (the resolution of the images is also different). To align it with this discussion: take the original 4 MHz analog TV signal, convert it to digital (at 6-8 bits, for example) and send that digital signal instead of the analog one.

With propper coding, a picture with the same error rate as the original analog can be sent using less bandwidth over a given SNR channel if you send it digitally using error correcting codes.

Re:I plead the second.

[Intron]

The cheesy 4:1:1 consumer-grade stuff samples luminance at 13.5 MHz x 8bpp and each color signal at 1/4 that, giving 162 Mbits/sec. Broadcast equipment is mostly 4:2:2 and 10 bpp so more like 270 Mbits/sec. The 25 Mbit rate is after compression. For digital broadcast, that same signal would get squished to 4.85 Mbits/sec to fit in the 6MHz channel.

Re:I plead the second.

['nother poster]

Huh? That's utter bullshit. Fistly, I believe what you are alluding to with your power x distance statement is that you wish to tell me that the inverse square law applies to both your noise transmission as well as the signal I wish to recieve. That would be a correct statement. Secondly, you would have to raise the noise floor across my spectrum to quite a few dB above what I'm attempting to recieve to really hurt my reception. With the inverse square law mentioned earlier, you would need to be very close or have a very powerful transmitter. Either way your jamming effect would be very localized or really expensive. Oh, and how are you going to cover the entire RF spectrum? Set up a spark gap with a few kW of input?

Re:I plead the second.

[mrchaotica]

You'd also have routes of hundreds or thousands of hops to get anywhere reasonably distant, resulting in incredibly huge routing tables. In turn, this would either increase the cost of the equipment or slow down the network considerably.

Re:I plead the second.

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in Montana, you insensitive clod! We're already stuck with being the last place to get any kind of improvement in service, we pay fantastically high rates for mediocre service, if any, and you would have us just cut off altogether? No thanks, man.

All he's saying is that those of us who live in more populated areas are pretty damn sick and tired of you living off of our dime.

Your "fantastically high rates" are no such thing regardless of the level of service you're getting.
Your rates would skyrocket were you to actually pay them yourself instead of expecting the rest of us to pay for them for you.

Cut you off altogether? I certainly wouldn't do that. That would be your service provider. If you can't even afford to pay for your own service, what makes you think I want to pay for *your* service?!?

As you put it:
No thanks, Man.

Re:I plead the second.

[fatboy]

Honestly our ownly hope is for google to light up all that dark fiber they have been buying and put a major hurt on SBC and the other greedy bastards right where it hurts.

Not really. As I have said before, content providers (ie. google, yahoo, etc) just have to null route AT&T's netblocks when they attempt to exstort them.

Let's see who really needs whom. Something tells me AT&T's customers would leave as soon as they could not access the sites that are the reason they need/want internet service.

Re:I plead the second.

[Intron]

I think you mean Shannon's Law, and that you are reversed on high and low SNR. A channel with 0 SNR carries no data. You also miss the original point. If I have a perfect channel (infinite SNR), I can compress the frequency range of an analog signal and send it in less bandwidth, since I can expand it perfectly at the other end. The problem is that on a real channel I can't send a digital or analog rate higher than the guaranteed minimum SNR allows, and that the inevitable errors on a compressed digital signal are worse than analog noise.

Re:I plead the second.

[Libertarian001]

You're right to do as you please ends where my face begins.

Re:I plead the second.

[zotz]

"but the free market exists to prevent that"

Exactly what free market are you talking about here? One of the regulated free markets?

all the best,

drew

Re:I plead the second.

[Abreu]

Here, have your dried frog pills

Re:I plead the second.

[sumdumass]

It is called peering and isn't an RFC rather a contract.

The "peering" is a contract that allows SBC and Verizon to interconect thier networks and share the cost of maintaining the conections. If you want you network on the internet, it eventualy has to cross into one of the main peer points. There are Technicaly 3 tiers to this system. I'm not sure how charging google to deliver content when they are on a different Peered network doesn't violate the terms of the perring contract. It seems to me that there should be recourse from googles ISP (even if it is google) for not allowing the peering to go thru properly. Also, i'm not sure how this violation wouldn't strip SBC's conection right to the main peer and turn them from a tier 1 provider to a tier 2 or 3 provider. I'm guessing these ramifications are the reasons they are trying to get aproval first but I'm not sure if the FCC can go around an existing contract or arbitarily change others contracts without some negotiation and maybe an act of congress.

Re:I plead the second.

[Fjandr]

A concerted effort to harass another person would still fall under other laws. This particular issue is covered redundantly by other laws, so is therefore not an appropriate example of the side-effects of deregulation. I'm not saying there aren't other appropriate examples, just that THIS one isn't appropriate. :)

Re:I plead the second.

[Fjandr]

The chosen name doesn't extend their power simply because it (the name) could be applied to areas outside their authority.

Or by extension do you mean they should be allowed to regulate my own personal speech?

Of course, there are people who would like to see the latter happen, and in many ways it is beginning to, but just because they have "communication" in their name does not extend regulatory power to all communication as a matter of course.

Re:I plead the second.

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

We have digital and analog TV, digital and analog radio, cell phones, FRS, and dozens of other "regulated" bandwidths. This is all data -- and digital data is more efficient -- so why not work to slowly deregulate more and more bandwidth so more and more people can take advantage of it?

Analog radio, specifically ordinary DSB-AM radio, is handy in emergency situations (such as long blackouts) because it can be received by crystal radios, which don't require an external power source. Also, cell phones can be used to make emergency calls ("911", "112", etc), even when the network is saturated and even when the phone is not normally allowed to use the network. That is, the network will drop paying customers' calls to make room for freeloaders, if the 'freeloader' happens to be making an emergency call. Why do the cell carriers and manufacturers bother implementing and deploying the emergency call system? Regulation.

What we need is not radio deregulation, but more unlicensed spectrum.

Re:I plead the second.

[revengance]

You will make a very bad business. Most likely, they should 50000 people 1 mbit connection for a 400 mbit pipe

Re:I plead the second.

[jank1887]

(if I had mod points I definitely bump that up)

Anyway, reading the wiki, it does seem that they would be switching from a Peer relationship to a Transit relationship. Now, either would technically still allow for full internet connectivity. And, if the wiki definition of Tiers is correct (I may be misinterpreting) the charging network (SBC, Bell, whoever) would remain a Tier one, as they would only be selling Transit access to their network. I.e., if you pay no-one, but still maintain complete connectivity to everyone, you're still a Tier 1. Thus, if they start to charge Google (?or Google's primary ISP?) for Transit, they'd still be a Tier 1, but the Google entity charged would be bumped down to a Tier 2 (if they had previously been a Tier 1). I.e., a Tier 1 could force another Tier 1 to become a Tier 2. (Something about that doesn't sound right, but that's how the wiki seems to read.) Then, if the now Tier 2 starts charging the Bell or whatnot for Transit, they are technically a Tier 2 now also. Seems like an avalanching effect waiting to happen, where soon everyone's a Tier 3, somehow paying everyone else. Of course, as unmanageable as that would be, things would likely fall apart rather quickly.

Now, someone explain how I misinterpreted this. (apart from: current contractual relationships prevent this from happening, since getting around current contracts is apparently at the crux of the issue.)

Re:I plead the second.

[sumdumass]

I'm not sure you misunderstood this other then I belive that SBC charging Google would in effect cause SBC to be bumped to a tier 2 carrier. I think the difference in our views result would be the cascading of the other networks into second and third tiers and eventualy SBC where I look past the process to the end result being SBC would heve little choice then to become a second or third tier network.

There is a large part of what is considered "the internet" that SBC doesn't own or control outside there peering agreements. This maybe even extended into thier telco interconects too. The more important part is that, under the current system, you trade trafic in general for like trafic in general and then sell access to that traded trafic to your customers. Under SBC's plan, Your succesful customers automaticaly becomes SBC's customers and the trafic is now selectivly shaped to benefit those that can be extorted. Another important part note is the changing of the system specificaly to extort or gain someone elses client as a customer of SBCs.

The only way for these peering agreements to be honored and some resemblence of the internet to remain as it is, would be to increase the over all fee for the trafic wich still allows the downstream provider to set prices (price fixing monopolistic pratices?) for the amount of bandwidth they carry. If google itself became a tier 1 peer with all the dark fiber they acumulated, They would be forced to pay the extortion even though they made a peering agreement with another carrier/perr point. So this not only effects googles ISP's peering agreement but the agreements made with who ever the ISP's isp is. It breaks everything and would eventualy force all the other cariers to charge SBC for access to googles site services so the costs can even out (you pay your isp for bandwidth not SBC, unless SBC is someone's ISP in the page request). Now SBC is a tier 2 or 3 carrier by definition.

I'm concerned not only by the stealing business from other companies and directly influencing the other companies practices by extorting thier customers but also the general attempt to price fix, violate agreements in place (even between two different companies) and excepted core principles of the internet's key iner workings. I'm wondering what SBC's position would be if google was using them as an ISP? What is thier postiion on microsoft's internet usage? What if microsoft suddenly starts getting thier bandwidth throttled for windows update or had to pay a premium to keep thier current speeds? If windows update isn't subject, then why is google, Microsoft is far more profitable then google. Is this some obscure attemp to interfear with market forces seeing how SBC and Yahoo are partnered as well as microsoft revamping thier search and web services recently. I'm also wondering if this won't trigure another Ma'bell style breakup of SBC in the near future? It would seem strange that the FCC would have much if not any powers to interfear with these agreements or change the key inner workings of the internet. I guess we are in for a huge round of lawsuites in the near future. I have heard even more questions being asked that might cause even more law suites. I wonder if it is going to be another whoever has the most money wins situation?

My $0.02

[robyannetta]

The FCC needs to be disbanded. They don't even know why they exist anymore.

Re:My $0.02

[fade-in]

Why? Oh why are they doing this? They're just a bunch of old crackers who've just barely had touch-tone phones installed in their offices! Why do they take it upon themselves to regulate technologies that they are not only unfamiliar with, but completely ignorant of! I'm sick of my communications being regulated by people who have actually used Morse Code.

Re:My $0.02

[TubeSteak]

I don't know about disbanding the FCC, but when I read "Could this be the end of internet innovation?" My first thought was: No, but it could be the end of FCC Chief Kevin Martin.

He's shown which side he's on and now everyone who isn't an ISP or network provider is going to be after him and/or his job.

The other story here, is in a link from TFA.
They mention that

AT&T CEO Ed Whitacre on Tuesday declared that his company won't try to block or degrade customers' access to Internet applications or content, a marked change of tone from his previous statements on the issue of network neutrality.
...
admitted that any service provider who tried to block or degrade Internet services would be committing economic suicide.

So at least one of the big boys no longer supports the idea of a tiered internet. Thank you AT&T/SBC for coming out and saying what most of us are thinking.

P.S. AT&T is currently making noises about a merger with Bell South.

Re:My $0.02

[Anonymous Coward]

The good old Bell System Still is best. Go MaBell! The worst day in telecom history was 01/01/1984 the day the bell system died.

Re:My $0.02

[clydemaxwell]

Morse code is still in widespread use in the world :p

Re:My $0.02

[JDevers]

Noises hell, they publicly announced the merger the first week of March. All that remains now is approval and that will be easy to obtain.

Re:My $0.02

[KlomDark]

That was the day Van Halen took over the world.

Google really should block AT&T customers

[rjreb]

Let's see who needs who.

Re:Google really should block AT&T customers

[Anonymous Coward]

Now that would work. Come on google take the fight to them.

Re:Google really should block AT&T customers

[PhYrE2k2]

The key would be not to 'block' AT&T customers, but purposely have a nicely negative page about AT&T. You're not going to get many people to switch providers, versus switching search engines (many don't even have a choice in providers), but it's a great way to inform consumers who normally wouldn't even know there's a problem (such as with blocking Bittorrent and P2P).

-M

Re:Google really should block AT&T customers

[Pichu0102]

Oh my god, I'm already getting the shivers from Google deprivation just hearing those words. Hold me, I'm scared...
Need Google... need Google... need Google...

Re:Google really should block AT&T customers

[Anonymous Coward]

Google blocking AT&T Customers? I thought these widespread DSL outages in the Southwest was just SBC^H^H^HAT&T's awesome reliability and uptime.

Well, that's what the customer support said, anyway.

SBC - Sometimes you'll Be Connected.

Re:Google really should block AT&T customers

[docpants]

Exactly...remember all those flatbed trucks and the fiber Google bought?

Re:Google really should block AT&T customers

[LWATCDR]

Everyone seems to worry about Google! No ISP is going to block Google search EVER. They may "degrade" Google video, Google VoIP, or other new services Google offers.
What people need to worry about is the next Google. New innovative sites will be the ones that get hammered with these charges. Think of places like Slashdot and Digg.

Re:Google really should block AT&T customers

[BartlebyScrivener]

Yep, I remember http://business.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,9075- 2023600,00.html

Re:Google really should block AT&T customers

[ojustgiveitup]

Why is parent modded funny? Perhaps there should be a "wryly astute" option.

Re:Google really should block AT&T customers

[Anonymous Coward]

The next google... slashdot, digg. Keep dreamin'

Re:Google really should block AT&T customers

[SeaFox]

No, but I do remember all the bandwidth Google purchased and their backbone operator traded to get Google's services online.

How many racks of servers did AT&T buy Google?

Meh...

[a_nonamiss]

The Internet was nice while it lasted. Rest in peace.

Re:Meh...

[Vampo]

Has Netcraft confirmed ?

Digg screwed this up too.

[Mr. Underbridge]

That's not what he said. He said he's in favor of tiered *access*, as in pay-per-speed cable internet like we have now. He did *NOT* say he was against network neutrality, and even said that they have the power to police that and will do so.

Basically, the blogger completely lacks reading comprehension skills.

Re:Digg screwed this up too.

[gowen]

Basically, the blogger completely lacks reading comprehension skills.

Isn't that a necessary qualification for blogging? That and the ability to sling around scare words like "extortion" with little or no justification.

Re:Digg screwed this up too.

[szembek]

That's what I read too. There is a huge difference. I would love to be able to pay less than $45/month for a slower connection, but would hate to have to pay ISPs to deliver content.

Re:Digg screwed this up too.

[Antimatter3009]

I was trying to explain this to people on digg. Here's my post from there, word for word, including a link to a more straightforward article:

"This is a sensationalist headline/article. Look at this article and read what he actually said:

http://www.networkingpipeline.com/news/183701554

For instance, the last sentence says, "When asked how consumers could measure service performance levels, Martin said that public Web sites already exist that let users measure their connection speeds." He's talking about limiting how much bandwidth you have based on how much you pay, which the telcos already do and have always done. You pay more for more bandwidth. If you read the rest of that article you'll see that AT&T has backed off of a tiered internet, calling it "economic suicide" and Martin says that they will enforce net neutrality if necessary. All they said is that they don't believe that new laws are needed to enforce net neutrality as they already have that power. TFA is blown way out of proportion to get more hits. Calm down."

Re:Digg screwed this up too.

[Lord_Dweomer]

And if ANYBODY thinks this will mean lower prices for people who actually use their internet connection, you are in for a big surprise. The internet providers have been dying for a way to charge more for people who do anything other than view a couple text websites and read email and this is their opening. They are going to pounce on this with the ferocity of Bush on oil.

Expect a minor discount for people who use their internet minimally and expect everybody else to see their bill spike by 20-30 bucks based on how much they download.

P2P? Yeah, it was fun while it lasted. Kind of funny that what will kill it won't be the RIAA/MPAA but rather high bandwidth costs. This could pretty much doom bittorrent (in the US at least) since who will want to upload as well when they'll have to pay mor eper month for the priviledge?

Re:Digg screwed this up too.

[TubeSteak]

Well, you amy be right, because everyone seems a touch confused over what's been said.

However, a quick trip over to Google News will give you plenty of articles to help clear up any confusion.

I bounced from Ars Technica to a ZDNet article that summed it up nicely.

Martin also said he supports the right for network operators to differentiate their networks and prioritize traffic on their networks.

"We need to make sure we have a regulatory environment (in which network operators) can invest in the network and can recoup their costs," he said.

I know this is /. and most people don't even RTFA before opening their mouths (kudos to you Mr. Underbridge for reading it), but if something is confusing or unclear spend the extra 45 second to get more information.

Re:Digg screwed this up too.

[Mr. Underbridge]

And if ANYBODY thinks this will mean lower prices for people who actually use their internet connection, you are in for a big surprise. The internet providers have been dying for a way to charge more for people who do anything other than view a couple text websites and read email and this is their opening.

So that's why DSL prices have dropped like a rock, right?

Expect a minor discount for people who use their internet minimally and expect everybody else to see their bill spike by 20-30 bucks based on how much they download.

If you mean "people downloading movies on bittorrent every day" then I hope they *do* charge more to them. I don't feel like paying for their bandwidth.

Re:Digg screwed this up too.

[Braino420]

Good thing there is more than one ISP. I have atleast 3 known ISPs in my area and the day Comcast raises the price from $45 with no added speed or bandwidth, we'll simply switch to another.

I would, however, definately be willing to pay more if there was an increase in bandwidth and speed.

Re:Digg screwed this up too.

[simon_hibbs2]

Preston is well known for this. Simon

Re:Digg screwed this up too.

[cdrudge]

Martin also said he supports the right for network operators to differentiate their networks and prioritize traffic on their networks.

I guess it depends on how you look at it. I see that the telcos should be allow to control their networks. If they as an ISP want to slow google videos to a crawl, I guess they have the right to. But they need to inform their customers of the fact and then the customers can decide if they want to take their business elsewhere. If Google doesn't want to pay the "extortion fee", then so be it.

Now if we are talking about the general backbones and toptier providers, then it's a problem.

Re:Digg screwed this up too.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, you amy be right

Ok, I know this is way off topic and probably a little harsh, but how the hell do you misspell a word that you take the time to emphasise?

Re:Digg screwed this up too.

[Lord_Dweomer]

I should have clarified. DSL providers do not typically oversell their bandwidth like cable providers do. And whether i'm downloading movies or linux ISOs should be of no importance to you. I pay for the service, I'm just using it to its full capacity. Don't like it? Switch to dialup.

Re:Digg screwed this up too.

[GeorgeMcBay]

Maybe he was speaking in ebonics and knows the original poster's name is Amy.

Re:Digg screwed this up too.

[Mr. Underbridge]

I should have clarified. DSL providers do not typically oversell their bandwidth like cable providers do.

Doesn't matter, upstream they still have to add capacity to account for the increased traffic. It's just further upstream than cable.

And whether i'm downloading movies or linux ISOs should be of no importance to you. I pay for the service, I'm just using it to its full capacity. Don't like it? Switch to dialup.

Change "bandwidth" to "electricity" and you might see how stupid that is. Bandwidth costs money, even for DSL. I'm not paying for yours, and no I *don't* want dialup, thanks. People like you are the reason they have to go to a tiered system in the first place, so that the rest of us don't have to pay for what you use. The companies realized this, so now I get my cheap DSL and you pay for what you use. So like it.

Re:Digg screwed this up too.

[snaz555]

I should have clarified. DSL providers do not typically oversell their bandwidth like cable providers do. And whether i'm downloading movies or linux ISOs should be of no importance to you. I pay for the service, I'm just using it to its full capacity. Don't like it? Switch to dialup.

Of course DSL is oversold. The link to the DSLAM doesn't grow just because they keep plugging more customers into it. DSL access is oversold at least 10:1, or there's just no economy.

The proposal also isn't about paying for bandwidth, but for quality. The Internet as it is is completely and utterly unsuitable for any real-time activities because of the atrocious jitter and constant route updates. (Read: temporary outages measured in seconds.) The solution is SLAs. VoIP is cute, but without SLAs it won't match the quality of a plain old circuit switched network. You can't just provision your way out of this, it's not a bandwidth problem.

Somebody needs to pay for the SLAs since they require resources. Let's start by eliminating the ISP -- they don't have the margins to implement it and absorb the cost. Let's also drop the government. Left is either the end user or the service. I don't use VoIP, why should I see my bill take a jump so my ISP can add infrastructure to make your calling experience match POTS, or vice versa? So some end users will need to pay for SLA usage if they want it. Either by usage (hot billing or monthly), or unlimited. It can be included by tiering, e.g. buy "premium" service and it includes VoIP SLAs and video SLAs up to say 700kbps for say 10 hours a month. Buy high-end service and you might get unlimited video SLAs in addition.

The other billing approach is for the service to pay for SLAs. E.g. your VoIP service or any other service that requires functioning beyond proof of concept simply factors it into their business model. This is probably preferable since it leverages competition and scale (i.e. it's easier to switch media service than ISP), and for many media services this is where the traffic originates. (Proxyless VoIP would be a notable exception.)

*Of course* SLAs require FCC regulation. Apart from merely standardizing it since so many parties are involved, it also equires regulation on what must be disclosed by an SLA provider, means of redress and arbitration, standards in billing, determining what is or isn't taxable by states and cities, methods of measurement (what's paid for), etc. And yes, it's going to need to happen if you want the Internet to ever be suitable for anything other than bulk traffic. And no, Google has no interest in this, they deal strictly with a data model based around submit-response, or they have made investments in tweaking media performance over a bulk medium, or have some other vested interest in keeping SLAs off the table. Or maybe they just crassly don't want the Internet to become usable for anything that might rock their ship.

Re:Digg screwed this up too.

[Beatbyte]

"I see that the telcos should be allow to control their networks."

They need to realize that THEIR NETWORKS our on our property and aren't god given rights to rape us financially. If they set this up then they should be able to have businesses lay cable just like they do so we can have alternatives to them.

Fighting for fair business in data is fighting for fair business in telecom.

And I can undoubtedly say that this is a huge reason this country is taking a shit on itself. We're so brainwashed that we think these companies can do this to us that it goes unnoticed. It gets worse every day. =(

Re:Digg screwed this up too.

[cdrudge]

They need to realize that THEIR NETWORKS our on our property and aren't god given rights to rape us financially. If they set this up then they should be able to have businesses lay cable just like they do so we can have alternatives to them.

You do have alternative. Cable, wireless, dial up, other DSL providers, not having internet, etc. The alternatives aren't always acceptable, what you want, or all available in your area. But they are there in some form. If you don't want the telco's to "rape us financially", then let your view know to them and if they start to, take your business elsewhere.

I'm not arguing for the telcos. I think the idea is stupid. I'm just pointing out that it's THEIR network (even though it may cross our property) and they can do with it as they want in this area.

And btw, it's not the consumers that would get raped (at least not directly). It's the providers at the other end. But don't give them ideas.

Re:Digg screwed this up too.

[Beatbyte]

"You do have alternative. Cable, wireless, dial up, other DSL providers, not having internet, etc. The alternatives aren't always acceptable, what you want, or all available in your area. But they are there in some form. If you don't want the telco's to "rape us financially", then let your view know to them and if they start to, take your business elsewhere."



If one company gets away with it, then they'll all do it. So what's my choice? The size of the foot in my ass or the style shoe?



I'm not arguing for the telcos. I think the idea is stupid. I'm just pointing out that it's THEIR network (even though it may cross our property) and they can do with it as they want in this area.


You don't seem to understand what sort of a monopolistic strangehold they have on us. If you (like I) worked in the field and new the behind the scenes BUSINESS (not technical) end of it all, you would have a completely different outlook.


And btw, it's not the consumers that would get raped (at least not directly). It's the providers at the other end. But don't give them ideas."


So the providers killing VoIP amongst other things isn't going to kill productivity? Imagine if you just rolled out 400 employees VoIP phones and now none of them work. Or that you rely on a resource that is behind that shitlist made up by the telco's... Your productivity drops 15-20% because of it.





The providers will always flourish if their product is good, and the end user won't have a choice of which carrier is used to get to the provider.

Extortion? Not quite.

[eldavojohn]

FCC Chief Kevin Martin yesterday gave his support to AT&T and other telcos who want to be able to limit bandwidth to sites like Google, unless those sites pay extortion fees.

From Webster's Dictionary:

extortion: to obtain from a person by force, intimidation, or undue or illegal power

So, by what part of extortion are you describing the FCC's actions? Sounds like you're just choosing a word to evoke hate and unrest to me. Remember, bandwidth is not free nor is it a god given right.

End of....

[Anonymous Coward]

Could this be the end to his career?

Please say it could :/

Talking point for Libertarians

[Myrrh]

...gee, as if I needed another reason to be a Libertarian.

Doesn't anyone think the FCC is overstepping its bounds? Maybe just a little?

Re:Talking point for Libertarians

[Angostura]

I can't see how a libertarian would want to argue with the idea that Internet companies should be able to run their commercial operations in the way they see fit.

Re:Talking point for Libertarians

[static0verdrive]

I do! I guess it's back to downloading freely (and worry free) from BBS's! I wonder... couldn't the Libertarians build their own, free internet? Obviously we still need a way to connect, but there has to be a way, similar to the good old days of BBSing. Non-fascists unite!

Re:Talking point for Libertarians

[Anonymous Coward]

well if we had a libertarian government, the FCC wouldn't get involved in this (as they most likely wouldn't even exist), and AT&T would do whatever the hell it wanted. I don't think that would be best... /mostly libertarian myself

Re:Talking point for Libertarians

[Myrrh]

...then you're not very familiar with Libertarian philosophy. Go do some reading.

Re:Talking point for Libertarians

[Myrrh]

Wait a minute, I just realized I misread your message. Disregard my reply, I was being an idiot.

Re:Talking point for Libertarians

[Myrrh]

Sounds great, we've got the technical know-how. Anybody got a line on financing the operation?

Re:Talking point for Libertarians

[Myrrh]

Ah, but considering how much of the Internet was constructed with government funds to begin with, if we were under a Libertarian government, do you think we'd even be in this situation at all?

I mean, AT&T got to be where it is today by existing as a government-supported monopoly for decades, then being broken apart, and (recently) largely reforming itself once again. I think things would be very different had that never happened.

Re:Talking point for Libertarians

[Mr. Underbridge]

Doesn't anyone think the FCC is overstepping its bounds? Maybe just a little?

If the FCC were actually doing this, I'd agree with you, but the idiot blogger got this one completely wrong. Martin's statements to date have been tentatively in favor of network neutrality.

Re:Talking point for Libertarians

[British]

I do! I guess it's back to downloading freely (and worry free) from BBS's!

Yes, and now we can call those BBSes over VIOP! We could come full circle.

Re:Talking point for Libertarians

[Valdrax]

So why are you a Liberatarian if you have a problem with the FCC saying that ISPs can do what ever they want with their property and that customers are free to switch (somewhere) if they don't like it?

Re:Talking point for Libertarians

[Valdrax]

Liberatarian

Gah. I meant Libertarian.
I gotta quit hitting submit accidentally when previewing.

first question that popped into my head

[arkham6]

Since now these comapnies are making decisions on what and how much sites will be traveling over their pipes, does this mean they lose their common carrier status?

Re:first question that popped into my head

[Secrity]

The internet divisions of US telcos do not have common carrier status and are essentially unregulated.

Re:first question that popped into my head

[Jtheletter]

Please mod parent UP and grandparent DOWN.

Everytime the tiered internet concept comes up in an article someone gets a +5 insightful for musing if the ISPs will have to lose their common carrier status. *ISPs* DO NOT HAVE COMMON CARRIER STATUS. They are covered under a different regulation in the Communication Act. From memory I believe it is 117A that covers ISPs.

Paradigm Shift

[flipper65]

I honestly believe that all this will do is lose customer base for those providers that go along and tier their internet service. I for one will be switching providers if my current ISP institutes this type of highway robbery.

Hopefully this will be an opportunity for ambitious ISPs to increase their customer base by providing the entire internet, not just the parts they can squeeze revenue from.

Flamebait Article

[Snap E Tom]

Jesus Christ, editors. That headline and summary is pure sensationalist flamebait. Read the original article instead of this blogger's spin.

http://www.networkingpipeline.com/news/183701554

The first half of the article is the AT&T CEO saying that they'll never block access and doing that is business suicide. The second half is this from Martin:

In a question-and-answer period in front of the keynote audience, Martin said that "I do think the commission has the authority necessary" to enforce network neutrality violations, noting that the FCC had in fact done so in the case last year involving Madison River's blocking of Vonage's VoIP service.

"We've already demonstrated we'll take action if necessary," Martin said.

However, Martin also added that he supports network operators' desires to offer different levels of broadband service at different speeds, and at different pricing -- a so-called "tiered" Internet service structure that opponents say could give a market advantage to deep-pocket companies who can afford to pay service providers for preferential treatment.

While Martin said that consumers who don't pay for higher levels of Internet service shouldn't expect to get higher levels of performance, he did say in a following press conference that "the commission needs to make sure" that there are fair-trade ways to ensure that consumers "get what they are purchasing." When asked how consumers could measure service performance levels, Martin said that public Web sites already exist that let users measure their connection speeds.

That's got nothing to do with site extortion. Shame on the submitter.

Re:Flamebait Article

[Anonymous Coward]

...a so-called "tiered" Internet service structure that opponents say could give a market advantage to deep-pocket companies who can afford to pay service providers for preferential treatment.

I think this line refutes your interpretation. If specifically says companies can pay for proferential treatment. There is nothing about the consumer,

Re:Flamebait Article

[AKAImBatman]

I think this line refutes your interpretation. If specifically says companies can pay for proferential treatment.

Only if you consider the fact that a large company pays more money for an OC3 than you do for your DSL to be "preferential treatment." Because that is what Martin is referring to. He specifically states that the FCC will make sure that customers "get what they pay for.

Re:Flamebait Article

[PPGMD]

It's always been that way, the one that pays for more bandwidth gets better performance, why should I get the same bandwidth paying $300/month for a T1 as someone paying $2000/month for a T3?

Network neutrality and the connections one can pay for are two totally different things.

Re:Flamebait Article

[archer, the]

Snap E Tom is correct.

Please read the original story. The AT&T CEO said they would *not* degrade or limit bandwidth, and stated his opinion that any company doing so would be committing economic suicide.

In essence, we already have a tiered internet today. I have my choice of bandwidth speeds: dial-up, DSL, or cable. I could even get fiber. Providers have a similar decision to make, although their choices include things like T1, T3, OC3, etc.

As long as the bandwidth/QoS is applied equally to all traffic over the link, be it HTTP, FTP, SSH, VOIP, or Video, I won't complain.

Re:Flamebait Article

[Slack3r78]

While you have a point, it's ignoring the context that the telcos have been whining for months that sites like Google and services like VoIP are 'unfairly freeloading on *OUR* pipes.' They want to essentially double dip on popular applications.

What can this lead to? One of a couple things, the way I see it. First, they implement serious traffic shaping and packet prioritization at the ISP level or higher. While this certainly would have an effect on Google and their ilk, having to either pay up or deal with a negative impact on their site, which, while not out and out blocking, could certainly cost them traffic, and hence money. That's where the extortion comments are coming from.

The applications that will suffer more, however, are things like VoIP. If they were to essentially drop things like VoIP into a 'bulk traffic' type filter, it could render VoIP applications essentially useless. So again, on the consumer side, you have a 'pay up or get out' ultimatum.

Now here's the real kicker - if those services wish to remain competitive, they're pretty much going to have to pony up the cash to be prioritized. So what happens? *Everyone* ends up paying the protection money so they're not at a competitive disadvantage. The net result of all this? Since everyone's traffic is 'priority' consumers end up paying more to end up with essentially the same level of service we have today. Except if your application uses something that doesn't make it into the 'priority' filters. In which case, you're now paying more for a lower level of service.

That's why you're seeing such a backlash against the concept of a tiered internet. It completely breaks many of the fundamentals the internet it built on, and the only people that gain from it are the telcos.

Re:Flamebait Article

[iamlucky13]

My first clue was the submitter's user name.

Competitor's Advertisement

[PineHall]

"Slow internet, use ours and get the maximum speed for any site."

It may backfire on them.

Re:Competitor's Advertisement

[PFI_Optix]

That's what I've been saying since this all started. Most broadband markets have at least two providers now; If one goes to this approach and websites refuse to play ball, they'll lose market share.

I wouldn't put it past Google to post a message: "You're connecting to our site via AT&T DSL. We apologize if the site is slower than usual; your ISP is artificially limiting the bandwidth to our website. Call AT&T Customer Service at xxx-xxx-xxxx for more information."

Picking a fight with Google is probably a bad idea.

Re:Competitor's Advertisement

[Valdrax]

Most broadband markets have at least two providers now; If one goes to this approach and websites refuse to play ball, they'll lose market share.

Yeah, but what if they all do that? I have BellSouth, Comcast, and Cox Communications for my only real alternatives in my area. All three big players love the idea of tiered internet. That doesn't really matter because there are alternatives, right?

Well, there are a handful of DSL providers that all use Bellsouth's network but charge more, like Earthlink -- no advantage there. There's wireless companies that offer the choice of too little bandwidth, too expensive service, and/or hideous Terms & Conditions. Lastly, there's SpeakEasy which offers unbundled DSL at only 150-200% the price of BellSouth and openly advertises the fact that they've already tiered their service for their own VoIP offering.

Okay, well let's assume that I pick one of these alternatives. Now, I'm free from the effects of tiered internet, right?

Wrong. 99% of the customers in my area all still get their broadband from one of the cheaper, faster services and don't know/care about the fact that their favorite companies are being extorted. The majority of people use the biggest name brand services they know about already. They won't care if little niche companies or the next insanely great thing all get killed by being unable to afford to compete. They won't even know it has happened because they're snug in their world of familiar name brands.

Popular products like music & video stores, VoIP, etc. will be replaced by offerings from the incumbent ISPs that somehow work better than that of competitors. ISPs will feel free to charge more than outside competitors because their service will actually work (and come in trial form with the connection). New things will simply remain untried because if they take off, then the ISPs will just clone and kill. The internet as we know it will simply fossilize into it's current state and fail to innovate.

So, um, go free market!

Re:Competitor's Advertisement

[ScrewMaster]

Wrong {...} they won't care if little niche companies or the next insanely great thing all get killed by being unable to afford to compete. They won't even know it has happened because they're snug in their world of familiar name brands.

My God ... I think you just described AOL.

Jesus Fucking Christ

[nysus]

Let's just fucking burn the constitution and let the corporations set up our new government.

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ

[Anonymous Coward]

YM "Fortune 500 corporations"

They want to avoid small corporations from gaining market share in any vertical.

HTH!

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ

[nysus]

I retract this. I'm guilty of putting faith in Slashdot editor's to get the story right. Can't believe it.

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ

[Anonymous Coward]

...ahm, I think that that's already happened... except that they left the constitution as a meaningless opiate...

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ

[Syntroxis]

Wow, you're just waking up? We've had a government of the People, by the Lawyers, for the Corporations for a long time. It's just been semi-effectively hidden until the last few years.

People have been getting the shaft from the government for a long, long time.

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ

[eln]

You must be new here.

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ

[Anonymous Coward]

I retract this. I'm guilty of putting faith in Slashdot editor's to get the story right. Can't believe it.
 
*points and laughs*

Google ISP

[djsmiley]

Hold on a second!!

Google has a Wireless network for free...... and loads of dark fiber.

Whats to stop them connecting the two, and giving everyone free wireless via their OWN google web. Yes i fear the day when the web runs via one source (in this case google) but at least it will be a source whom generally gets things right and fair.

That or we will end up with "binded" lines where people upstream run programs to allow us to find the fastest route to said host.

Think of peer to peer style, with dns's run by each user. Self updating and authicating. Some people would run sites as gateways to other networks from say, Google net to msnWeb, and in return they would have some ad's on a page which appears "Please wait while you are transfered to xxx, if you wish click the ad as you wait, ad will be opened in a new window....".

Maybe im a crazy fool, but its them prosing a monolopy on the internet.

Re:Google ISP

[4e617474]

Google has a Wireless network for free...

Great! Now all I need is a Wi-Fi antenna that gets me on a network at 200 miles. (unless they're not still operating it in New York, in which case I need about 3,000)

Whats to stop them connecting the two, and giving everyone free wireless via their OWN google web.

That would be the "everyone" part.

on the other hand....

[phlegmofdiscontent]

I'm against a tiered Internet as much as the next guy, but there are precedents. Snail mail, for example, has a tiered system where you pay your 39 cents to get a letter someplace in sometime less than a week. You pay extra to get it there the next day. Many cities (the Twin Cities included) have lanes set aside for tolls, if you don't want to wait in gridlock. It seems that this is the way services are going, but that doesn't mean we have to like it (or even stand aside for it).

Re:on the other hand....

[hypnagogue]

Actually, that's a great precedent to cite: but it works against your argument.

Standard "first class" mail is handled on a best effort basis, and there is no discrimination between senders or receivers. That describes the "net neutral" model for best effort route interconnects as it exists today -- and as it has existed since the advent of the internet.

The AT&T plan would say, "Yes, your 39 cents is good, but not when your mail is addressed to Google. In that case we drop your letter on the floor because Google won't pay an extra surcharge that we only levy against them." Net neutrality isn't limited to access -- it has to do with interconnect agreements. Best-effort routing is at risk, and with it the expectation that you should be able to route a packet from one IP address to another without worrying about which troll bridge your packet has to cross.

Don't worry, though. Us old timers have seen this before.

Re:on the other hand....

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

I'm against a tiered Internet as much as the next guy, but there are precedents. Snail mail, for example, has a tiered system where you pay your 39 cents to get a letter someplace in sometime less than a week. You pay extra to get it there the next day.

You're still not understanding the issue. In those cases, you are paying extra for more service. In this case it would be more like the post office charging particular, wealthy receivers of mail extra if they did not want mail sent to them to be delayed and extra two days. These companies have no relationship with Google. They are common carriers. Think of it like many postal systems that work together. They are given special privileges in return for acting as common carriers who treat mail from everyone the same. Now they are abusing that position and failing to act as common carriers. As a result they should lose all their common carrier privileges. If they want to charge extra to people with deep pockets, fine, But they should no longer be immune to prosecution for all the copyright violation and kiddie porn the copy from router to router. They should no longer have exclusive, government sponsored right of ways to run lines. They should have to pay back all the money the government used to subsidize them in the first place.

They can be common carriers or they can be ordinary businesses. They should not be able to have it both ways.

Re:on the other hand....

[tacokill]

Except all the examples you cited are public institutions - which implies we have some sort of indirect control over them. The internet is almost ENTIRELY private networks - which implies you have ZERO say in how they operate.

I would be more inclined to agree with your post if we would denote internet access as a "public utilty". Until that time, I assure you that ANY private company who gets "tiered" internet powers will utilize those powers to extract the maximum number of dollars from you. And they will abuse it at every chance they get.

History is on my side.

Re:on the other hand....

[thrillseeker]

I'm against a tiered Internet as much as the next guy, but there are precedents. Snail mail, for example, has a tiered system where you pay your 39 cents to get a letter someplace in sometime less than a week. You pay extra to get it there the next day.

Yeah, but do you justify that your 39 cents for "first class" is used to subsidize the cost of "bulk rate" - i.e. you're paying for crap you don't even want in the first place. Efforts by some elected officials to fix this are shot down by others.

Re:on the other hand....

[sabre86]

I think internet connections are a public utility. Spreading information is of critical importance to our society -- how can I vote intelligently if I'm uniformed? Also, federal and state governments are increasingly relying on internet portals and forms -- tax filing and Katrina relief come to mind.

I have the oddest feeling that much of the internet infrastructure has been subsidized, as well -- but don't quote me on that.

I agree that a tiered internet is a bad thing... it reminds me of the the castles built along the rivers in Europe for levying taxes on commerce -- highly detrimental to the overall economy.

--azzk

Why blame just the sites?

[Cougem]

So the idea is to blame websites for generating interest, and so increasing bandwidth costs? So many problems

1. Google is a very clean site, MUCH less clutter than so many other search engines - I'd award it for saving bandwidth, considering people are always going to use SOME search engine.
2. Google's good. Really good. ISPs will probably save money getting their customers to use google rather than trawling round irrelevant websites looking for info
3. If we blame sites of generating so much traffic and bandwidth, what stops us blaming protocols or programs? Mr. Cohen's bittorrent generates a hell of a lot of traffic, why can't be blame him for providing this service if we can blame google for providing theirs?

Re:Why blame just the sites?

[MightyMartian]

The whole Telco claim is a lie, though I see their bribes to the FCC have finally reached the right place. Without sites like Google, they'd just be a fucking pipe.

It's time for everyone to start leaning very heavily on their politicians and reminding them that the Telcos don't cast ballots. Congress could blow this out of the water by simply legislating the plans into illegality.

Re:This is a great day

[Serapth]

Yeah, typical slashdot mentality. Blame Microsoft for everything. This problem is caused by the government ( FCC ) and benefits the telcos only. Microsoft gets just as hurt by this as Google. The only difference I see is back during the dot.com bubble, Microsoft was buying stakes in telcos like mad trying to speed high speed adoption. However, since then I think they have sold off alot of those holdings. ( Meanwhile Google has bought dark fibre like mad. Wonder if Google saw their dependance on the Teclos as a weakness and took prevenative actions??? )

Here We Go...

[eno2001]

This is the beginning of the HUGE attack on average people using the internet to get unpopular messages out to the rest of the internet in America. Since the internet allows anyone with the itch to "publish" their views freely, the larger corporations have been trying to find a way to shut that down. Can you imagine what the world would be like if everyone had access to radio and television stations to program their own stuff unfettered (putting aside the technical issues of interference since they don't apply to the internet)? The only way that people will be able to pass any really important infomation that the media giants don't want you to here eventually will be e-mail. And e-mail is about as threatening to them as phones were. Expect to see a lot of the ISPs that provide web hosting and the free web hosting services and blog services more heavily restricting content if it doesn't serve their corporate masters well. Expect to see more and more TCP and UDP ports being closed off so you CAN'T run your own darknet to provide services of your own to your friends and family (something I do right now). Big media is NOT interested in someone having a large enough stage to broadcast a message that big media doesn't want people to hear. In the future, we will all be criminals even if all we want to do is tell the truth. We're halfway there now.

What am I paying for again?

[PFI_Optix]

Because I'd have sworn I paid for a 3 Mb connection. If Google can provide me with 3 Mb bandwidth, why exactly should they be paying the ISP I already paid?

Re:What am I paying for again?

[Bender0x7D1]

There is a flaw in your position. Consider this statement:

Because I'd have sworn I paid for a telephone connection. If Google can provide me a telephone connection, why exactly should they be paying the ISP I already paid? Because you need a phone line at each end.

The reason it breaks down is there is overhead at -both- ends. You need to be able to contact Google, and Google needs to be able to receive your transmission and respond. There isn't just your equipment and account, there is Google's so they can be ready to receive requests and return the requested information.

I think the tiered or quality-of-service Internet is coming. Why? If you get broadband over your cable or phone line, the cost of the phone line or cable service is subsidizing the broadband. The broadband by itself doesn't require new lines to be placed. They piggyback on the existing infrastructure. Now, when you have VoIP, people still want the cheaper cost of broadband, but without the additional cost of their regular phone. Guess what - you are losing your subsidy on your broadband; the one that came from your regular phone line. You used to pay it, and now you don't want to. The money has to come from somewhere. That means higher prices.

So what does this have to do with Google? VoIP. If Google provides a free VoIP service, it means that a single broadband connection can support hundreds of regular voice channels. If 100 people stop using the regular phone service, the telecomm has to get that money back from somewhere, (and all the subsidies that help cover the broadband), so suddenly broadband needs to go up, by a lot, for the average consumer. Alternatively, they can make Google pay it all and keep their own customers happy.

I'm not saying this is great, and that the business model doesn't need to change, but if everyone switched to VoIP and dropped their normal phone lines, all the telecomms would go bankrupt, and all of their infrastructure would fail, and the Internet would fragment. It will take time for new models and pricing plans to be developed and implemented. In the immediate future, prices may change, there might be different levels and types of service, but the Internet will continue routing.

On a final note, this idea that we all deserve a lot of inexpensive bandwidth is unreasonable. There is a lot of infrastructure that is required and most of it we don't think about. How much does it cost to keep a service team in the middle of Wyoming in case a cross-country fiber line gets cut? Can stuff be rerouted? Yes, but it can also cause cascading failures as the nearby systems get overloaded. How much does it cost to dig a tunnel under an Interstate, or a river, (or an ocean for that matter), so service can be provided? How much does it cost to repair fiber that got cut by a boat's anchor? Sure, 90% is relatively easy and inexpensive, but that other 10% is incredibly expensive, difficult and time consuming - and just as important.

Re:What am I paying for again?

[duerra]

While what you say has a point to an extent, the basis for it relies on the telco's doing nothing to offset the cost, and also fails to realize that I am *already* subsidizing those lines that they're putting down with my taxes, and by the government-sponsored monopolies that are being awarded to those guys, essentially giving them free reign to rip me off.

Quite honestly, I don't see why I should have to pay $60 a month for a cell phone bill, and be charged for network access on top of it. The direction that this stuff is taking is headed straight for the raping that is cell phone companies today.

If they want to offset these costs, charge more for the pipe or offer less bandwidth for the same price, but I'll be damned if I'll bend over and take it up the butt to artificial restrictions being put in place to prevent me from having access to what I already paid for to begin with (and bandwidth that is not guaranteed anyway).

Re:What am I paying for again?

[tacokill]

Great post. Except for one thing: What about non-telco networks? The entire premise of your post was based on telcos subsidizing their internet offerings with revenues from telco POTS lines. That may be true for the "traditional" network operators (telcos) but it is NOT true for cable companies and other means of internet access (wifi, wimax, etc)

But tiered internet will apply to ALL of them. And that's why its a bad idea.

Re:What am I paying for again?

[Abcd1234]

Because I'd have sworn I paid for a telephone connection. If Google can provide me a telephone connection, why exactly should they be paying the ISP I already paid? Because you need a phone line at each end.

Yeah, and with the Internet, you need a 'net connection on each end. And guess what? Each end pays. Google pays for their connection, I pay for mine. That should be the end of it. The carriers in between? Well, they get paid via peering agreements.

But charging *Google* because *I* accessed their website, specifically? That's plain old fashioned money grubbing.

I'm not saying this is great, and that the business model doesn't need to change, but if everyone switched to VoIP and dropped their normal phone lines, all the telecomms would go bankrupt, and all of their infrastructure would fail, and the Internet would fragment.

Uhhh... no. Google already pays on a per-gigabyte basis (well, I assume, anyway). If VOIP was implemented, then they would consume more bandwidth, and would be charged comparably more. What you say is true if the telcos were using their telephony business to subsidize their data business, but if that's the case, they should fix *that* problem by charging Google more for the bandwidth their using (and *not* by differentiating based on the service they're providing... that would be anticompetative).

On a final note, this idea that we all deserve a lot of inexpensive bandwidth is unreasonable.

Then how did we get by so far? Are the telcos and cable providers all going bankrupt? Because they must be, if what you say is true. Alternatively, they're overcharging for their other services (telephony, etc) and subsidizing their broadband business, but that's their own damn fault.

Or maybe the real truth is that building the infrastructure incurs a tonne of upfront cost, but once that outlay is complete, the maintenance costs are significantly lower, and are easily recouped by providing customers (business and residential) with bandwidth, in addition to valuable services.

Re:What am I paying for again?

[PFI_Optix]

Because I'd have sworn I paid for a telephone connection. If Google can provide me a telephone connection, why exactly should they be paying the ISP I already paid? Because you need a phone line at each end.

Google pays for their end, I pay for mine. Now my ISP might want to make Google also pay for...what now?

It'd be like the phone company told businesses "And for a nominal fee, our customers won't hear a busy signal 1/10 times they dial your number!"

Re:What am I paying for again?

[Bender0x7D1]

If VOIP was implemented, then they would consume more bandwidth, and would be charged comparably more.

True, but the cost-per-gigabyte was anything near the cost-per-voice-channel in a regular phone line, their costs would be too high to operate. Consider a voice channel only requires 8 Kbps, which means a 1.5 Mbps broadband connection could handle almost 200 voice channels. At $20 for a regularly price voice line, this would be $4000, far less than what is charged now.

Then how did we get by so far? Are the telcos and cable providers all going bankrupt?

No, they are not going bankrupt, but they also aren't swimming in untold billions of dollars. Look at (the new) AT&T financials. They had sales of US$44 billion, and a profit of US$4.5 billion. Not bad, but not great. What helps keep them afloat? Various tax breaks, government subsidies and things of that nature. See the taxes paid in AT&T's Q4 (-US$500 million).

Or maybe the real truth is that building the infrastructure incurs a tonne of upfront cost, but once that outlay is complete, the maintenance costs are significantly lower, and are easily recouped by providing customers (business and residential) with bandwidth, in addition to valuable services.

Unfortunately, just like most homeowners, they don't $X billion in cash to pay for everything up-front. (Again, SBC pays US$ 400 million a quarter in interest.) They have to borrow the money from somewhere to build the infrastructure and then pay the money back. Then they have to do more than just pay back the money they borrowed because, by the time they get it paid back, the infrastructure will begin to need repairs and upgrades, and they need to have money available for that. Charge too much, and you lose customers. Charge too little and you will get bought out. It is just like with chip fabricating; the chip costs $100 to make, but the R&D was a couple of billion, so they get sold at significantly more than $100.

Re:What am I paying for again?

[Anonymous Coward]

"On a final note, this idea that we all deserve a lot of inexpensive bandwidth is unreasonable."

I think there's something subtly wrong with this statement.

A lot of the cost seems to be fixed expenses due to laying fiber. A dilemma for the industry could be supply and demand - there's only a certain amount of demand today. If you make the price too low because you make all your dark fiber bandwidth available, you can't sell all of it. I would suspect that once you lay the cable, it doesn't cost much more to sell faster service. But if you have linear per-gigabyte pricing, there isn't enough demand to make it profitable because people wouldn't use it. There seem to be comments that many places in Europe have 100 mbit service to the home, for about what we pay in the US for 1.5mbit service. But people who can survive on 1.5mbit service would then expect to pay only a fraction of the price since they don't need 100 mbit service.

But hey, that's just a guess. Someone made a comment about the new AT&T having profits of $4.4billion on sales of $45billion. 10% profits...doesn't exactly sound like they're hurting.

It's not my job to set the rates, but in the end...the consumer pays. If not directly, they pay more for products that pay more for advertising that pays more for google to pay more for bandwidth. Or AT&T tries to raise their rates for DSL, and I pay more directly. (If AT&T is running their internet division as a loss leader to take market share from cable, isn't that illegal dumping?) Now...isn't that unfair? If AT&T charges Google a premium, it's paid for indirectly by all internet users (via larger advertisement charges) regardless of whether they use AT&T.

Go right ahead

[Anonymous Coward]

want to be able to limit bandwidth to sites like Google, unless those sites pay extortion fees

Sure. Right. Go ahead and try charging Google. And when google cuts your entire network off, including every office and company you own, good luck there. Youll have customers parting loudly in droves to go to their competitor isp that doesnt limit the access.

The ISPs seem to forget that its google and other content providers that make people sign up for their service. ISPs are indebted to google, not the other way around. Google already pays for access.

If they want to play hardball, fine, but google has a cannonball while the ISPs have a peashooter. You want to charge us extra, we'll cut your ass off and destroy your business.

Customers will just go somewhere else, probably someplace cheaper.

I mean, how would you react if suddenly your ISP limited your access to google services?

Re:Go right ahead

[briancarnell]

Of course, TFA doesn't actually say what the summary claims. Another example of Slashdot outright lying. Must be a weekday.

Re:Go right ahead

[faedle]

The truth is not that black and white.

What if you are using Google for search, and you start to discover that response time to Google "seems slow" compared to Yahoo (who hypothetically is paying for "tiered access") ? If you are most people, you'll just start using Yahoo. Or MSN (don't think for a minute that Microsoft wouldn't jump at the chance to get ahead of the line of Google). The customer would hardly ever get blocked.. just pages would be slow to load.

If you want to see this "fuck it up just enough to be annoying" business model in action, look at Netflix. The vast majority of Netflix customers are blissfully unaware of the "rent too much, you get less" policies. The 5% that notice are usually the least-profitable customers, so Netflix loses very little if those customers go to Blockbuster. The vast majority (probably anywhere from 50% - 80%) never see the "policy". The people in between who get throttled either blame it on the delivery mechanism (damn post office!) or don't even notice because they're not sitting on their front porch with a stopwatch.

Same thing will happen here. Most users won't notice. If they do notice, they'll just switch to whatever works.. like the Internet, they'll view it as "damage" and route around it. The few that do? Dollars to donuts, AT&T et. al. view them as "unprofitable" and would prefer they go play BitTorrent on somebody else's network.

Welcome to modern business: where pissing off customers can be viewed as a "good" thing.

Re:Go right ahead

[Anonymous Coward]

Its funny you used netflix as an example. Im the OP and ive been using netflix for ages. Right now, Im on the 5-out-at-a-time plan, and go through about 10 dvds a week.

Sure, I see some slowdown sometimes. Once it got bad enough that I sent them an email (and referenced the lawsuit in it.)

Since then, its back to normal super speedy dvd delivery.

You made a shite comparison and you should fess up to it.

Re:Go right ahead

[faedle]

Nope, it's a perfect comparison.

You are paying for a higher tier of service. Many people on the 3-disc tier get The Shaft, and get nothing when they complain.

Re:Go right ahead

[hkmwbz]

It's the blogger that's lying (again). Slashdot just posts his drivel unfortunately. Not the first time it happens either.

There's no way

[Anonymous Coward]

There's no way that Google is letting those old retards at AT&T (which by the way still stands for American Telephone and Telegraph) get away with that. Google has too much invested on the internet, and they have tremendous power.

Just my 2 sense.

Money Talks, Sheeps Walk...

[richdun]

Could this be the end of internet innovation?

Well, I wouldn't go that far. But it is disturbing. Think about TV/cable. So called "premium channels" like HBO and Showtime for years were just convenient movie rental stores, but when network and cable TV by and large took a sharp down turn with reality TV and the same comedy over and over, they innovated and have some of the best (quality) shows on TV. Even some cable channels have started to produce decent series, like USA's Monk, Dead Zone, 4400, and Sci-Fi's BSG (of course). Now these are some of the most popular shows on iTunes, showing even more that people will pay for quality if the free stuff is less than stellar.

Point is, the vast majority of people will always just do whatever is free/popular/advertised to death. Those who truly want a good experience and good quality, the web connoisseurs per se, will pay for the good stuff. The trick is to balance our demand so that the price of the good stuff doesn't get too high - or stays free, with off the backbone networks or private ones.

Re:Money Talks, Sheeps Walk...

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you INSANE? Television is worse than it ever was thanks to the concept of "original programming". HBO and Showtime make the CRAPPIEST programs I've ever seen in my life. There is nothing on any of those networks that competes with what comes from the BBC, PBS or hell even ABC back when they were running David Lynch's Twin Peaks. The only thing the original programs prove is that TV has devolved from what used to be an art form to a commodity that is primarily designed to make money.

Yes it is

[bhirsch]

Because of increased cost, there will no longer be internet innovation. We know that when one company increases its costs beyond what the market thinks is reasonable, competitors do not arise and undercut them. Once again, the nail was hit right on the head.

Re:Extortion? Not quite.

[blanalex]

Maybe, but why should Google pay twice? I'm sure they already pay their ISP for their bandwith and the end users are also paying for their bandwith. What's the point in making google (or anybody for that matter) pay again?

I'm hoping you're right.

[numbski]

The comment was so vague as to be flame-war fodder.

He's right. In the building our data center is in right now, I can pay as little as $50/Mbit/mo and as much as $500/Mbit/mo. It just depends on how redundant the throughput is and how important it is to us that our connectivity not go down.

Here's the issue I have. We keep using the term "faster".

In my mind, faster == less latency. More throughput is how much I can send at that speed. I could sell you 5Mbit/sec access that has latency of nearly a full second, or I could sell you 512k access with latency under 2ms. Which is "faster"?

I'm hoping our FCC overlords are simply experiencing a moment of that same confusion, and that we have the opportunity to clear up the clouds in their heads. There are a few technological decisions that are of critical importance to the growth of our country, and I think this is easily one of them. We can't allow this to happen.

Ma Bell would like to be able to bottleneck throughput, and in effect artificially create latency. I can buy 5MBit/sec backbone service, but what they're asking is that if I don't pay the "access cartel" for "protection", then something might choke up that throughput on the way to its destination.

Not good. :\

Reading comprehension

[flipper65]

I admit it, I'm guilty, I didn't read the refering article. Whoever submitted this must have had english as a second language. From the original article:

"In a question-and-answer period in front of the keynote audience, Martin said that "I do think the commission has the authority necessary" to enforce network neutrality violations, noting that the FCC had in fact done so in the case last year involving Madison River's blocking of Vonage's VoIP service.

"We've already demonstrated we'll take action if necessary," Martin said."

Clearly, the FCC chief is saying that they have and will continue to enforce network neutrality.

Nothing to see here, move along.

Re:Extortion? Not quite.

[bedroll]

"extortion: to obtain from a person by force, intimidation, or undue or illegal power"

You're saying that you don't think the statement, "Pay us or we'll make your content crawl for our users." is forceful, intimidating, and potentially undue or illegal?

Think of it this way: The internet is a website's path to its front door. How would you feel if the government sold the sidewalk leading to your front door and told you that you'd have to have your customers use the back entrance unless you started paying $50 a month?

What about reserving bandwidth?

[Mateo_LeFou]

i was really miffed hearing (even though it's only partly true?) that Verizon is reserving 80% of the bandwidth in their FiOS net for their television service. The solution seems to be for Google (or someone) to light up their dark fiber and say "all your bandwidth are belong to you; do what you want with it". That will be a dark day for these gangsters

Re:Extortion? Not quite.

[rhkaloge]

Sounds like you're just choosing a word to evoke hate and unrest to me

And you would be correct. Get out much?

I already pay a premium for my speed...

[IANAAC]

I'm with Speakeasy - not the cheapest out there - and use their OneLink 6.0/768 package. I pay a pretty hefty price for it - about $130.00 with my VoIP. But I could always go back to 1.5/384 and pay $49.00.

I don't really see the future being much different than what I'm experiencing now, since I don deal with ATT at all. Speakeasy is my dataline broker.

Re:I already pay a premium for my speed...

[Viv]

Different beasts. These guys are talking about having content providers pay to have priority in their network; currently, everyone is treated equally.

Assume you're an AT&T customer. This sort of behavior could end up in a situation where AT&T wants you to pay them for high speed access to their network... and then they want to turn around and have Google pay to provide you high speed access to their site. Does that sound reasonable to you?

They charge you money for high speed internet, but in order to do that, the sites you use must also pay money to deliver to you at high speed. That's pure bogosity in my book.

Further, you can have a situation where Google has a line to AT&T, but in order for AT&T to deliver it, they have to hand it to say, UUNet, who then hands it off to Earthlink. So in that situation, in order for you to have high speed access, YOU will have to pay Earthlink, and Google may end up having to pay AT&T, UUNet, and Earthlink also.

Does that make a lot of sense to you? Essentially, what that tells you is that the only content providers that will be able to provide bandwidth intensive services are the extremely wealthy ones. And thus ends the days of the Internet as a level playing field where the little guy can compete with the big guy.

Re:I already pay a premium for my speed...

[Renraku]

Basically..what Viv is saying..

Not only do you have to pay the tollbooth to get to the island, but you have to tell them where you're going so that they can decide whether your destination has paid them enough money to let you by without hassle. What? They haven't? Get on over in the 'Normal' lane. Yeah, the one with the 20 mile traffic jam.

Re:I already pay a premium for my speed...

[fordan]

Actually, it does seem reasonable, as long as they do not degrade their best-effort traffic. If the best-effort traffic to most of the Internet is too poor for you, seek out a new ISP.

The way most ISPs will provide "enhanced" access to their customers is to run a direct connection to the content provider to provide a shorter path and larger pipes for that traffic to flow. Essentially, that content provider will become a customer of the ISP, and the ISP is justified in expecting payment for the service.

If the connection to the content provider saves the ISP money because that's less traffic on the links they pay for to have Internet connectivity, then they may do it for free as a peering connection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peering). But often, this isn't the case, because incremental bandwidth is cheap, while dedicated circuits are expensive. And of course, if the content provider needs faster access more than the ISP needs enhanced access to the content provider, there's not a lot of incentive to treat them as a peer rather than a customer.

Re:I already pay a premium for my speed...

[Viv]

It's impossible to provide prioritized traffic without degrading best effort traffic. If you have a certain amount of bandwidth between two points, and you have priority traffic, then by definition some of that bandwidth is going to be preferentially allocated to the priority traffic -- meaning that there's less for best-effort and thusly degredation for best effort.

The only time when there would be no degredation is when there is enough bandwidth for everyone -- at which point, the priority system is worthless because there's no need to prioritize.

Google might save us

[drgroove]

If you believe Bob Cringley, Google is building another backbone to the internet already, which it will use to make everyone's connections faster (through caching); this could work to counteract a 2-tiered "pay for better access" internet that the Telcos and their FCC whores are thinking of building.

By Choosing Where NOT to Compete, Google Can Win the Broadband Game
Taking over the digital world four ounces at a time.

Let's just hope Bob's right about this one, and that Google won't charge us for usage of their boxen.

Re:Google might save us

[Shadyman]

Maybe google will end up being a third tier...

OK! Let's have open airwaves!

[Anonymous Coward]

We're sorry to inform you, Mr. dada21, that your wife's plane crashed into a mountain. Soemone was broadcasting their podcast about the deep meanings of Green Day's music in the band allocated to aerial navigation.

Oh, and your son is dead. He was hurt playing sports, and bled to death because the ambulance was misdirected by a radio prankster.

Dada21, in a completely anarchic bandwidth, the elite will be in even MORE control because they will be able to afford the most powerful equipment to drown out everyone else.

In the current system, one of the loons from MECHA can appear on The O'Reilly Factor and spout his lunacy. You people don't know how good you have it in your country.

Re:OK! Let's have open airwaves!

[Alex P Keaton in da]

Mr Dada- your implication is clear- and I question the intelligence of anyone who posts that kind of threat on a public board. The FCC, like any gov't organizations, can overstep its bounds. And if you don't like it, it can be changed with your vote. I don't want to talk politics, but the tired internet debate is just like the (insert contraversial subject) debate. It is the apathy of the American electorate that allows these crazy schemes to go forward.
Lest you think the above post is speculative: The FCC is an important organizations, as the following article illustrates.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/20/tech/mai n1419502.shtml
FAA On Trail Of Pirate Radio Station
MIAMI, March 20, 2006 (AP)
The FAA said it has conducted about 30 similar investigations of pirate broadcasts interfering with airport transmissions in the past decade.
(AP) Airline pilots taking off from Miami International Airport are getting an earful of hip-hop tunes from a pirate radio station that sometimes interfere with their communications with the control tower.

Re:OK! Let's have open airwaves!

[dada21]

It isn't a threat. It's a "cold, dead hands" comment. I would never shoot anyone offensively nor defensively unless I felt my life was in danger. The 2nd amendment allusion is a joke on the "I plead the 5th" Enron mockery of the Constitution :)

As for the FAA, the FAA is stuck in the 60s and always will be. We're seeing privatization and partial privatization of various "FAA" style organizations throughout the world and we're seeing them overcome many of the problems with the FAA. Canada did it in 1996 with great results, although now it looks like they may take it back (if they haven't already).

The airline industry is in a very unique position -- many of the airlines are living on subsidies and loan grants, so they have to stick with the FAA. On top of that, the FAA is part of the problem with the airlines in many ways.

I believe solutions to the problem you mentioned are available. I don't have all the answers, I just know that over-regulation and coercion is not it.

Re:OK! Let's have open airwaves!

[gowen]

I don't have all the answers, I just know that over-regulation and coercion is not it.

Whatever you think of regulation, when it comes to airlines over-regulation ios a hell of a lot better than under-regulation.

Re:OK! Let's have open airwaves!

[jdavidb]

And if you don't like it, it can be changed with your vote.

I keep voting, and nothing changes. Experimentally, I seem to have disproved your assertion.

Re:OK! Let's have open airwaves!

[Money for Nothin']

And if you don't like it, it can be changed with your vote.

You REALLY believe that a SINGLE vote will change *anything*?

I doubt that's what you meant, because you'd be a complete idiot if you believe that, and I don't believe you're an idiot.

Basic arithmetic and some reasonable assumptions show the idiocy of believing in the idea that any single individual's vote counts. Assume:

1) A city's mayoral race between 2 candidates, with a voting population of merely 1,000 people. (It's a small town...)
2) Candidate #1 = 550 votes (55%)
3) Candidate #2 = 449 votes (44.9%)
4) Whoever has the greater percentage of the vote wins.

Now, ask yourself: if you vote for either candidate, have you changed anything? No: the race could come down as 550 to 450, or 551 to 449. Either way, candidate #1 wins, regardless of *your* vote. This example scales to the national level, but obviously becomes more-stark and depreessing as the population size increases.

Hence, *your* vote doesn't matter; *your* vote is irrelevant. (It would be different if the ratio were 500 and 499, because a vote for the latter would tie the election. But this practically never happens (and before the "it happened in FL in 2000!" dopes come out and jump down my throat, I suggest to them looking up the words "anomaly", or "outlier case")).

This is why voting is irrational if a reasonable set of probabilities of winning is known before an individual's vote, as is the case in every election (on the basis of polls and particularly betting markets)... Only for a wholly-uninformed moron could voting be rational; yet, these are exactly the kind of people we *don't* want voting. (Arguably, they come out in droves during every election cycle.)

Voting *can* be rational on other grounds though: personal pleasure, or the ability to say "at least I didn't vote for the guy who's now doing a crappy job in government", etc..

But making a difference in an election? That almost-universally isn't a good reason for voting (nice paradox, I suppose).

Don't make google angry

[aapold]

you wouldn't like them when they're angry.

TFA

[davecrusoe]

From the ARTICLE, NOT the blog message; also see Information Week, http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jh tml?articleID=183701605 . And from the TelCoWeb's own article: http://www.telecomweb.com/news/1142972723.htm

"Reversing his rhetorical field a bit, AT&T CEO Ed Whitacre on Tuesday declared that his company won't try to block or degrade customers' access to Internet applications or content, a marked change of tone from his previous statements on the issue of network neutrality. And Federal Communications Chairman Kevin Martin said that his agency has the authority to police any so-called net neutrality violations, both in the voice and video arenas.

Both messages were sent to the keynote speech audience here at the TelecomNext show to support the idea that new legislation or regulation to specifically encode net neutrality beliefs into law isn't needed. Whitacre, who last year told BusinessWeek in an interview that Google and Vonage were "nuts" for thinking they could "use these [AT&T's] pipes for free" -- comments that sparked much of the fear and loathing in the net neutrality debate -- on Tuesday admitted that any service provider who tried to block or degrade Internet services would be committing economic suicide.

"Any provider who blocks access to the Internet is inviting customers to find another provider," Whitacre said in his keynote speech. "It's bad business." He then emphatically stated that AT&T would not block independent services, "nor will we degrade [Internet access]. Period, end of story."

In a question-and-answer period in front of the keynote audience, Martin said that "I do think the commission has the authority necessary" to enforce network neutrality violations, noting that the FCC had in fact done so in the case last year involving Madison River's blocking of Vonage's VoIP service.

"We've already demonstrated we'll take action if necessary," Martin said.

However, Martin also added that he supports network operators' desires to offer different levels of broadband service at different speeds, and at different pricing -- a so-called "tiered" Internet service structure that opponents say could give a market advantage to deep-pocket companies who can afford to pay service providers for preferential treatment.

While Martin said that consumers who don't pay for higher levels of Internet service shouldn't expect to get higher levels of performance, he did say in a following press conference that "the commission needs to make sure" that there are fair-trade ways to ensure that consumers "get what they are purchasing." When asked how consumers could measure service performance levels, Martin said that public Web sites already exist that let users measure their connection speeds."

Google can create their own backbone network

[MikeDataLink]

And then just put AT&T out of business by introducing them to this little thing called competition.

That's really all the telcos need. TRUE competition and all this BS will go away (and probably them too, they are too bloated to run on a real profit margin of say 30%).

What are you paying for again?

[GuloGulo]

Well, ideally you're paying for the ability to read articles like this. If you'd used that ability, you'd realize the submitter was making shit up, and in fact, the aticle say nothing remotely resembling what the submitter claimed.

Re:What are you paying for again?

[PFI_Optix]

As I recall, whats-his-name at Bell South (now being consumed by AT&T, which was consumed by SBC but kept its name) actually wanted to do something like what is described.

I didn't miss the fact that the article is grossly exagerated and hopelessly sensational.

Another step towards regulation of the Net

[Anonymous Coward]

People will state the slippery slope argument, but its not hard to go from the concept of throttling bandwidth of Google, to totally disallowing or redirecting connections to websites that are "undesirable".

Perhaps in the near future, an attempt to connect to www.slackware.com, or freshmeat.net will redirect you to Microsoft's Vista online ordering service? Or, the connection would just time out.

This borders on extortion, the same tactic that botnet owners use on sites, when demanding money or the site gets flooded into oblivion. Its the same result either way -- pay up, or your customers get no connection.

I think its time for people to make more anonymous service providers like findnot or cotse.net, or people need to donate to add more endpoints to tor, because it looks like not just the content of traffic, but where the traffic is going is now something that has to be locked down.

*sigh* Maybe its time for another physical packet routing system... guess its time to work on low-range pirate packet radio or line-of-site communication lasers.

Points against libertarians you mean

[SmallFurryCreature]

If anything this proves we need MORE goverment control and not less. More and stricter goverment control that is not swayed by commercial forces.

Give you libs their way and we will be totally at the mercy of the telcos who build their networks with tax money in the first place. A really strong goverment would have slapped the telcos down hard and demanded several billions in return for the initial investment of the goverment having payed to invent the internet.

Left and Right wingers are both nuts but either are to be preffered to the libs. It is no wonder NO country in the world is run by them. Voters ain't that stupid.

Re:Points against libertarians you mean

[Myrrh]

I would argue that, had we had a Libertarian government in the first place, AT&T would not exist (at least not in its current form) and therefore the other phone companies (which sprang up to compete directly against AT&T or were spun off after the 1984 breakup) wouldn't either. In any event we would be in a very different situation.

Re:Points against libertarians you mean

[mickyflynn]

We DID have a Libertarian government in the first place. Andrew Jackson killed it.

Re:Points against libertarians you mean

[colmore]

The Cherokee were Libertarian?

Re:Points against libertarians you mean

[Anonymous Coward]

No, government control and corruption causes monopolies.

Libertarians believe in minimal regulation created to allow freemarket and protect others from harm.

The telephone companies could try to have their monopolies but they would not have favorable laws and regulations to back them up. That's what we have now and it's also where your argument messes up.

By giving the government more power you encourge more corruption.

"New Yorker" article opposing tiered internet

[smellsofbikes]

This week's issue of The New Yorker had a one-page article briefly summarizing the *actual* tiered internet (google has to pay SBC to ensure QoS, not the tiered-to-consumer plan in TFA) and pointing out why it was such a bad idea. It read just like a +5 Informative from /. with the same points we've all made during previous posts on this, and got me to wondering if the person who wrote it reads /. -- so if you do, thanks! it was lovely and did a great job of explaining to the teeming masses what it means and why it's a bad idea.

Re:"New Yorker" article opposing tiered internet

[crabpeople]

I very frequently see topics discussed on slashdot appear in the new yorker. THey most definately have someone trawling slashdot for stories. I cant remember if i ever mentioned it before, but pretty much any technical computer related story has alot of points lifted off of this site.

They frequently quote the EFF as well and ive seen a number of articles on the philosphies and concepts of open source. Its pretty much the most well written magazine out there. It must be nice just trawling slashdot for comments and then copyright infringing them into a piece you get paid for. I dont figure i own what i say on here anyways and id rather have the readership of the new yorker have a better understanding than any vanity i could care to derive. Wish i had that kind of job.

their website is also very well done and their are plenty of free articles offered.

Re:"New Yorker" article opposing tiered internet

[yEvb0]

"I very frequently see topics discussed on slashdot appear in the new yorker. THey most definately have someone trawling slashdot for stories. I cant remember if i ever mentioned it before, but pretty much any technical computer related story has alot of points lifted off of this site."

All of the topics/articles on /. are posted by users trawling the Internet looking for computer related stories, so the ideas aren't coming here firsthand, either. However, /. is good at leading me to articles I wouldn't otherwise have found. I enjoy reading the stories and commentary on here, but I'd never volunteer to turn on all of the comments in a /. discussion into one coherent article. If New Yorker is using /. as a window into the techie world, I'd say it's a good thing if it takes some of these stories from the realm of the geek and gets the general public to take an interest in topics like telcom regulation.

Re:"New Yorker" article opposing tiered internet

[smellsofbikes]

A: I'd give my eyeteeth for a job at the NY, yeah.
B: It's possible that someone there reads /. but /. is often running stuff that the WSJ ran first, or that digg ran, so it's also possible that some people on the NY staff are tuned into the same issues and there's a simultaneous awareness that an issue is big enough to write about.
C: Plagiarism is copying from one source, research is copying from multiple sources (even if it's a bunch of comments on the same thread on /., I suppose...)
D: That Malcolm Gladwell article on the Microsoft/Apple/Linux metaphor of making cookies -- yeah. I'm thinking he's definitely been looking around here. When opensource methodology and philosophy is showing up in the pages of an arbiter of the cultural elite you know it's becoming a big deal.
E: I'd claim I read it for the articles but let's be honest: it's the cartoons.

Re:"New Yorker" article opposing tiered internet

[marcosdumay]

If they rewrite the comments into something different, there is no problem with copyrights. Remember that what is copywrited is the text, the ideas don't have owners (yet). And if they help FOSS's cause, better yet (remmember who owns /.).

And capitalize your 'I'. It is "What I said" not "What i said".

Re:"New Yorker" article opposing tiered internet

[80 85 83 83 89 33]

dude, that was funny as shit. too bad you got hit with a troll mod. often times it is hard to draw the line between funny, insightfull or troll, as the line is often blurred. in my comment modifier settings, i used to have "funny" comments automatically taken down a point, thinking that it would increase the signal to noise ratio... well, i was missing many of the most insightfull comments, since there is usually a measure of truth and insight to humor.

and sometimes truth hurts, more so if they don't know how to interpret the tone of a post.

Google will have a tough time even.

[numbski]

Have you tried to buy dark fiber from a telco before?

Ain't gonna happen. I've tried. I've been trying to months now. Sprint, Charter, Ma Bell, you name it. They all have dark fiber I could simply light up and my work would be done, but none of them will do it. They want to light it and sell me "service", at a price that winds up well exceeding the price of the dark fiber. My choice winds up being having to overbuild them, because none of them will sell. At least not to the little guy, so Google might have an advantage here.

To put this into perspective, when I first started looking, I was being quoted $35/ft for fiber, "just to get to the street". Once you get to "the street", now you're having to shut down roads and such, so we're at closer to $100/ft. That, and my municipality has rules against putting fiber on poles, so you have to bore conduit underground...unless of course you're a big media company with a presence in the area (**cough** Charter **cough**), in which case they get to ignore the rules.

So for me to run fiber 1/4 of a mile to link my two sites? (btw, I'm going to user optical and rf backhauls, but I'd sleep a lot better with a "hardline") would cost nearly 1/2 million dollars. 1/4 mile!

Insanity knows no bounds. :(

Re:Google will have a tough time even.

[Anonymous Coward]

Tut Systems XL-5050, and similar products, will do the job on a pair of regular copper wires.

You can also setup a wireless bridge.

Re:Google will have a tough time even.

[Thundersnatch]

What about free-space optics fome a vendor like this? A few tens of thousands should get you gigabit-speed links between two sites that are so close. If you don't have line-of-sight, you might have to rent space to put a relay station somewhere, but it will still be a lot cheaper than fiber.

Re:Google will have a tough time even.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why should they sell you dark fiber when they could sell the same strand to 50 different people and run DWDM or a MUXed service on it?

Also, why shut down the street for 1/4 mile? Can't you use horizontal drilling machines to pull the conduit? Thats what most of the big guys do. Stuff like: http://www.vermeermfg.com/vcom/TrenchlessEquipment /Line/PrdlnID/3383/horizontal-directional-drills.h tm
Closing the street, ripping it up, and laying conduit end to end is the old way.

Re:Google will have a tough time even.

[JWW]

Hell, I can't even get the local telco to sell me a bare copper wire, let alone dark fiber.

Re:Google will have a tough time even.

[k12linux]

Have you tried to buy dark fiber from a telco before?

Heck, just try renting dry copper from most telcos.

I tried to get access to 4 miles of dry copper. The price I was quoted was over 2x the price for a line WITH local phone service included. This is despite the fact that there would be no gaurantee of suitability or reliability of connections made over the wire.

Re:Google will have a tough time even.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is BS.. you can lease private fiber from carriers.. My company is in the process of doing this right now.. We are leasing dark fiber from all of the major carriers to build a large DWDM network then run a new MPLS core over top of this..

IT IS POSSIBLE.. And if your curious as to who, we are one of the top financial firms in the world.

Re:Google will have a tough time even.

[Sentry21]

It's too bad you don't live in a city like Montréal. Montréal has a network of city-owned conduit, spanning 19,200 kilometres, providing direct access to more than 38,000 buildings across the island. Running fibre along the conduit costs a relatively insignificant $3.65/metre. Too bad more cities can't get it right like this.

Re:Google will have a tough time even.

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay, this is a screwball idea, so take it with some salt.

Bribe someone in the waterworks to go check out the local storm sewers. Measure out how much optic you would need to run a line from your point a to your point b. Figure out if your cable costs would still make this reasonable, then make sure you can run a cable through the storm sewers, you will likely need conduit for that, and possibly either a permit of some sort, or a friend/bribe buddy at the waterworks, but at least theoretically this could work.

Re:Google will have a tough time even.

[Hawke666]

Yup...I was quoted $475 install, $75/month.

"hurr"

Re:Google will have a tough time even.

[Anonymous Coward]

Have them run an alarm circuit.

Re:Google will have a tough time even.

[vijayiyer]

A major obstacle in most US cities is the lack of density - once a city is sprawled, it becomes exceedingly expensive to provide services like this (or real public transit for that matter). This would be interesting for New York, but I'm not sure it would work elsewhere.

Re:Google will have a tough time even.

[numbski]

Thanks for the link, I've got a call into them right now.

Given that this is a 1 1/2 mile link (wireless was already in the picture), I'd have to get a dry pair from the phone company or stretch UTP myself, right? To do UDP myself I'd have to put conduit, at which point I might as well do fiber, but at least this gives me choices.

Thanks again!

Re:Google will have a tough time even.

[Anonymous Coward]

when you say a 'relay' station, you are referring to a mirror, right? that would be a damn sight cheaper than a second transciever.

Re:Google will have a tough time even.

[Shishak]

Don't know where you live but..

Aerial fiber is roughly $50k/mile to install. That is with pole attachments, pole replacement, fiber and splicing. You can normally do it for $30k/mile when things go well.

Underground fiber is quite a bit more *if* you need to trench your own conduit. Most likely you can lease interduct inside existing conduit, you pay roughly $500/mile/YEAR to lease the interduct then you pull the fiber through that.

$500,000 to 1/4 mile of fiber is insane, you must not be looking very hard.

If you live in Verizon territory take a look at http://www98.verizon.com/wholesale/business/poleco nduit/midatl/0,18815,atl,00.html/

Re:Google will have a tough time even.

[cyberscan]

Yup, you illustrate the problem. You stated that you are one of the TOP FINANCIAL FIRMS OF THE WORLD. Major corporations get the service that others only dream of. You either got that lease either because you could afford to pay exorbitant rates or because you have a "partnership" (special connections) with the phone cartel. These are something that most people do not have.

Re:Google will have a tough time even.

[Anonymous Coward]

that's bullshit. US cities are not significantly less dense than cities of the same size in other western countries. ...and the country itself is far more densely populated than Canada...

Re:Google will have a tough time even.

[Eternauta3k]

Move to a 3rd world country. Here in Buenos Aires there are cables going through the air everywhere, and I don't see anyone getting punished for it.

Re:Google will have a tough time even.

[Anonymous Coward]

Many places that don't flood, don't have storm drains, or if they do they are basicly holes in the ground.

Re:Google will have a tough time even.

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Many people in the US have not yet learned that "Live by the populist sword, die by the populist sword." You accept "the people" have the right to vote any law they want into existence because, hey, they're The People! Well, the downside is that things you don't like get put in place by elected officials sometimes, too.

By the way, local governments stopping "cables in the air" is government intervention. Live by the populist sword, die by the populist sword...what most of [b]you[/b] believe in, not me.

Re:Google will have a tough time even.

[numbski]

We do. St. Louis. :)

I don't think I'll go sewer hopping just yet, but you did put an idea in my head. Thanks.

Re:Google will have a tough time even.

[maxrate]

I *just* got my fiber circuit from Bell Canada two weeks ago. I ordered 10 or 11 months ago, promised it would be installed in 2 to 3 months. I can tell you there wasn't a heck of a lot for them to do as far as getting it to the street. I am in a building built in the 50's. No one else here has fiber. There is a fiber 'box' down the street from us (a good 600 feet).

I am paying $950/month Canadian to Bell (1 year contract) for 10mbit/access. Then I pay the ISP about a $1000/month for 10 mbit/sec burst access (which is typically 8.5mbit/8.5mbit). (It runs very smooth.)

Point being: Bell had to use an underground tunnel boring machine. Took a crew of 5 guys 4 hours to drill 600 feet and install big ass conduit. That was the 'toughest' part for the Telco. My install fee was $2100.

Something is up with those prices. HydroTelecom here in Canada is the most expensive whore there is for getting dark fiber. They ALL want to sell you their services now, they make up BS reasons for not selling you dark fiber. Basically, the only thing you can do when you're a dark fiber customer is fix the fiber yourself, so you don't have the tool that tells you where the break in the line is. That is the telco's excuse for not wanting to sell dark fiber. They are bastards, really, they are. All you need is a couple of single mode optical to ethernet convertors. You can buy them in 2km to 100km power levels for $300 to $1500 each.

Keep digging! You'll get somewhere. BlackBox sells SDSL extenders that use dry copper - i've been using them for years (knock on wood) NO problem. There is also a company I saw on google called tahoe-group.com they sell expensive but 9.6mbit extenders for copper. Maybe that's your solution. DRY + Wireless failover technology. How much speed do you really need?

Re:Google will have a tough time even.

[BgJonson79]

Not quite. When you figure out where people actually live, I believe Canada is more densly populated. Don't most of y'all live within 200 miles of the US border? Also, in most jurisdictions, it's illegal for the gov't to compete with private enterprise, as its usually the same gov't who regulates said enterprise.

Re:Google will have a tough time even.

[werewolf1031]

Wait, I thought all dark matter was non-baryonic and therefore doesn't interact with visible light, so how can you use dark fiber to transmit...

Er, wait... that's not what you mean by "dark fiber", is it?

Re:Google will have a tough time even.

[Anonymous Coward]

They won't sell you dark fiber because they want to milk it themself, so why do you think would they sell you "silent copper" when they could milk that too?

And then, isn't actually the price for digging the trench and laying down the =whatever-cabling-you-have-got= the most part of said 1/2 Mega$? I guess if I had that much money and had to do it, I would burry down one-foot diameter tube and install not only the optic fiber, but a dual (two way) "pneumatic mail" line and a kilovolt power line (just in case I ever need it) inside it.

Re:Google will have a tough time even.

[Thundersnatch]

I suppose that depends on the distances & obstacles involved, the local atmosphere, and the quality/design of the mirror. It's hard to keep high-quality optics clean outdoors. And of course beam alignment is an even bigger challenge with a mirror in the mix.

Re:Google will have a tough time even.

[k12linux]

That is what I asked for. I don't remember what the install fee was but they wanted about $60/mo after all taxes and fees. I pay less than that for the delux plan phone service... and basic phone service is under 1/2 of that price.

Re:Google will have a tough time even.

[AdrocK]

We lease point to point fiber from a company (and I watched them hang it on the poles, it wasn't existing dark) for slightly over $18K a YEAR. The company is called FiberTECH out of Syracuse, NY. Now we did sign a 4 year contract, so figure about 72K over 4 years. Now included in our price is the equipment to light it, and gigabit ethernet interfaces on each end. It's just under 1 mile as the crow flies, but they followed the road, so its probably about a mile. If the costs are as high to hang this stuff as others indicate here, then it should have cost them somewhere between 30 and 50 thousand just to hang it. So by the costs that people have posted here I can't imagine that the company would not see any profit from it until after 3 years of service. Keep in mind that this is in a rural environment as well, so renting poll space isn't quite as much as it may be in a big city, but it's harder to install.

Also, since I work for a school, we get 70% of the above cost BACK for New York E-Rate. So its even cheaper. :-)

Re:Google will have a tough time even.

[Eternauta3k]

Sorry, but I had trouble following the first paragraph. Mind rephrasing it?

No it isn't

[Deathlizard]

Microsoft isn't going to be for this either. Everyone keeps mentioning Google when tiered internet comes up, but Microsoft generates just as much traffic with it's MSN portal (since it's the default Home page from most IE Users) and Windows Update. Possibly more since Windows Update is sending patches all the time and the MSN portal isn't exactly bandwidth friendly like Google is.

AT&T will run to Microsoft for money just as fast as Google.

Re:No it isn't

[AndreiK]

As I stated in another comment, Microsoft does not completely rely on its portal for revenue, as Google does. All of Google's profit is from online applications.

Re:This is a great day

[liangzai]

No, no, no. Seriously. Microsoft will just dump the costs on every bloke with a PC, you know the computer that comes pre-installed with Vista. Vista as in hasta la vista with the competition who can't afford the services M$ will roll out: search, blog, whatever on M$ bought high-speed pipes.

Telecom and other Corporations

[AzBats]

This seems to be one of those instances where the free market bites a corporation in the butt and then they whine to the Government so that pro-"their business interest" regulation is put into place or in place regulations are used/ruled in their favour. Thus making it an un-free market even though corporations are championing a free market to whatever gov. official will offer them sympathy.
In this case AT&T was free to create it's own innovate search engine and reap the benefits from it. Investers would not have made the same dough via AT&T than Google by making sure a brand new company introduced itself to the stock market.

Business as usual

[HunterZ]

Just more evidence that the FCC is a corrupt department that has become a government pawn (a sort of "inside man") of the media and telco industries. They did the same thing with the broadcast flag, remember? The courts had to shoot it down. It's time for someone to wake up and smell what they're cookin', and shake things up at the FCC.

"F**k you very much, the FCC" - Eric Idle, The FCC Song - released for free here: http://www.pythonline.com/plugs/idle/

Re:Business as usual

[GuloGulo]

You know, there's nothing more hilarious than reading a rant by someone who didn't read the article.

Thanks for the giggle.

Extortion is a little strong, but the FCC is whack

[Corrupter]

I think telcos are justified in charging companies for their real consumption of resources. Some sites consume an inordinate amount of bandwidth and we can't expect someone to foot the bill for that for free. But, the guy in the article is right in that it will stifle some innovation. Google would never have been able to put Google Earth online if they had to pay for the real bandwidth in consumes in direct proportion to it's value. When you look at the real use value of it , vs. the bandwidth it actually consumes, and Google knew it would have to pay for the bandwidth, it would probably never have been built.

On the other hand, I agree that the FCC is not fulfilling it's mandate or obligation to the people. They do a lot of good important work at the FCC with regards to keeping things straight for cell phones, satillites and radio comms. Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water. But, they have been completely bought out by big radio corporations, tv corporations, and now telcos. The have forgotten that they answer to the people, not to K Street. It is time that we all reminded them, and our representatives, who the FCC answers to. Everyone write a letter to your two Senators, your Congressmen, and the FCC Chairman. Let them know who they really work for.

and today...

[Anonymous Coward]

I am ashamed to be an American.

FCC

[WiZard82]

I just realized, that, more I hear about FCC more I hate them...
In addition; this idiot (Kevin Martin) is just the icing on top of the FCC cake. GO HOME, EAT BLEACH AND DIE GREEDY DUMBASS.

preferential treatment

[Anonymous Coward]

Look again. Ars technica gets it.

No, instead, AT&T would like provide increased quality of service to those web sites who pay for the privilege. . . . Would a site like Google need to pay each of them to ensure high bandwidth throughout the US? And what about overseas?

There's a push on for actual netork neutrality LAW. Pipe owners don't want that, because then there'd be legal penalties to non-neutrality.

So, they come out and say they won't "degrade" the general internet sites, but leave the door open to "enhance" sites in their pay-for-QOS club.

Why so inflamatory?

[Hoplite3]

There's no need for the inflamatory story language. Trying to say that a tiered internet is bad is like trying to explain why decapitation is bad. You're wasting words. We're all with you.

Better to sound rational to convince those who don't understand. A non-neutral net is a terrible thing to contemplate.

At the minimum, neutrality protects the new marketplace. It helps all us smoes enjoy the good parts of a free market system. Calling for an end to neutrality is like calling for an end to racketeering laws in the real world. Sure, someone is going to make more money, but at the expense of the market as a whole.

And beyond brain-dead economic analysis, the internet has a kernel of world-improving good, with electronic journal archives for the sciences, free encyclopedias, and so forth. (Of course, wrapped around this kernel are gigabytes of porn...)

Who invited the FCC to the party anyway? Someone tell them their headlights are on so we can lock them out when they go to check.

Re:on the other hand.... your wrong

[SmallFurryCreature]

What you describe is the current system. Just like I pay more to have a letter send fast I also pay more for a fast line. You pay more for a 3mb line then a dial up modem. Same as with postage stamps.

Oh well not entirely. Because on the internet BOTH parties pay. Google pays a hosting bill as well. Bit like you would need to pay a subscription fee to receive mail as well pay for postage for sending mail.

What the new idea is to add yet another fee for the middle man. For the snail mail example imagine that you had to pay the post office to accept your letter, the receiver had to have a subscription to have a mail adress and now the mailman wants a cut for delivering the message at the normal speed.

As for your road example, it would be true if the car maker charged you extra for when your car is not stuck in traffic. Do not pay and your steering goes wobbly above 20 miles per hour.

No, there really is no precedent for this. The closest thing is the mafia who is famous for trying to get a cut of whatever money is being made even if they have no right to do so.

The telecoms are already getting paid by both google and the enduser for handling the traffic. This is just a way to get even more money.

Then again, there certainly is plenty of precedent for greed.

Where is the free lunch?

[Anonymous Coward]

I must be dumb, why does google get to use the intarweb for free?

Re:Where is the free lunch?

[Shanoyu]

They don't. Telco's just aren't allowed to charge them more or less than other companies on the basis of their usage.

Perhaps, but you apparently missed this

[GuloGulo]

"Reversing his rhetorical field a bit, AT&T CEO Ed Whitacre on Tuesday declared that his company won't try to block or degrade customers' access to Internet applications or content,"

and this

"Any provider who blocks access to the Internet is inviting customers to find another provider," Whitacre said in his keynote speech. "It's bad business." He then emphatically stated that AT&T would not block independent services, "nor will we degrade [Internet access]. Period, end of story."

Of course he could be lying, but you really shouldn't jump to conclusions.

Re:Perhaps, but you apparently missed this

[PFI_Optix]

It's been a while since I read the initial volley of this stuff, but if I'm remembering correctly SBC stated then that they wanted nothing to do with a teired internet. Then they went on to acquire (and become) AT&T and are now looking at (or have just completed) acquiring Bell South.

Tsk, because your connection is just so flammable

[SmallFurryCreature]

Would go up light anything if someone carelessly dropped a match you know what I mean?

Very dangerous location this internet, accidents happen all the time. Now if you made an entirely volntery donation to our neighbourhood watch program we make sure you remain save and don't have your legs broken by vinnie with a lead pipe if you catch my drift.

I don't do a good mafia impression, you want one talk to your local telecom

Not bad for an AC

[Mateo_LeFou]

I'm sort of inclined to agree. Doing and end-run around the whole oligopoly, and using radio-on-chip devices to mesh ourselves together might be the best.

Re:Not bad for an AC

[Anonymous Coward]

You can mesh all you want, but you're going to be lucky to eek out 1 kbps. I've set up mesh networks in ad hoc mode on 802.1b and a and it works fine as long as you have a well fed endpoint and appropriate aggregation and capacity.

Throw unlimited traffic on it (e.g. a neighbor running excessive P2P) and you're hosed. Lacking central administration resources and control to rate-shape and protect your backbone traffic, you're really hosed. And then, were are you gonna get out? You're essentially setting up an ISP and you have to home somewhere if you want to touch the "other" Internet.

A better solution is to immediately drop any stupid carrier like the Bells that are foolish enough to push their "pay for premium access (aka barely reliable access) to my eyeballs" model. They tried this in 1996, they tried in several times in the early 2000s, and they initially planned on this model with ANS and NSFNET through a NAP model that Al Gore was pushing. It failed every time before because customers have a choice: unrestricted "normal" Internet or the pathetic crap the Bells tried to push. Take a look at AT&T's first "Internet" offering - it was access to AT&T's Internet, not /the/ Internet. People were screaming when they signed up on frame relay circuits only to discover the network went nowhere except to other AT&T clients. AT&T tried arguing for nearly a year with these customers that the "other" Internet was unreliable and AT&T's new Internet was better for VPNs.

AT&T finally caved since nearly nobody kept the service and interconnected to the real thing. De facto standards are a bitch, have kept Microsoft a quasi-monopoly and will keep any of these Bell fossils in check (please lord let Qwest be as foolish to try this - it'll finally sink them).

This will make things worse for telcos

[argoff]

What will happen is that people will create all these "dark nets" where you cant find out who the real originator or the real destination is. Implementing these "dark nets" will likely be done at the expense of more telco bandwidth.

I for one welcome our big telco overlords

[Anonymous Coward]

I for one welcome our big telco overlords

GCC

[gurutc]

How about the Google Communications Commission? Google knows how to play the game with governments. Not meaning to post flamebait here, but Google's already pushed all the right buttons with both the FCC and China recently. I think that Google's got enough business presence to get the good treatment from the US gov.

A further development

[kludge99]

A further development shows that 'FCC Chief Kevin Martin' received numerous South Pacific fishing trips, and a european golf trip, paid for by the telecommunications lobbying group (TLI).
Just kidding, but something smells fishy nonetheless.

Re:Extortion? Not quite.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a lot like charging me to use a toll road to travel to my parents' house, AND charging my parents for allowing me to travel to them. I pay to use the "road," and the only reason I do is because it will take me there. This scheme is the brainchild of a greedy effer, torn from the SCO playbook!

Easy solution!

[scronline]

There's actually several solutions. The easiest is to find a different ISP that won't do that. You know, like the independants that have better service, better support, and usually cost the same if not close enough to the same to not matter. Independants usually also expect that "hey, the customer is paying me for their connectivity I shouldn't charge someone else for that same product". Besides, if you think about it, that's like selling a ferrari to someone but putting a governor on it that won't let it go faster than 35mph. Then selling the codes to the oil companies to turn off the governor first time they fill up.

The other option, start writing letters to congress. It won't be long now and the republican control will be lost in the house. I'm pretty much middle of the road with conservative leanings, but I'm absolutely HATING what's happening in this country with Bush in office and that's due, in part, to republican control of the house. This is an election year....this is the time they take complaints from constituants seriously.

Charging for Value, Not Content

[Thapa]

The tiered internet the telcos want to make is not based on bandwidth. We already have that and it makes perfect sense: if I want 3 MBps instead of 1.5, I pay more. Companies like Google probably pay tons for all the bandwidth they need.

The problem is that the telcos are looking at companies like Google, and have realized that using this bandwidth they have paid for, Google is making a hefty profit, and the telcos want a cut. So they mask it up a bit and say they're charging extra to "ensure speedy delivery" or whatever it is they couch their lies in.

I think of it this way: Let's say there are two factories on the same power grid, and each use 1.21 Gigawatt-hours of power this month. Most us would rightly assume that they will pay the same amount for this power. Now, if the telcos have their way, it would be like allowing the power company to charge Factory A extra, simply because they produce a largely profitable product.

I have a question about this, though

[Mateo_LeFou]

If they're choking your access to certain sites, how could you find that out? There are plenty of sites you can measure your connection speed, but how would you measure the speed you're getting when you connect to google against the speed when you connect to VerizonRules.net?

Re:I have a question about this, though

[Loether]

There are several tools you could install on your PC to test your speed to a certain site.

http://www.visualroute.com/ may be more helpfull in determining where the bottle necks are.
http://www.dumeter.com/ is one (Disclaimer: I don't use it but my dad swears by it)

Bottlenecks could occur for many reasons DOS attacks, /. effect, viruses to name a few. But it would be hard to tell for sure why google was slower than site x.

Re:I have a question about this, though

[morgan_greywolf]

For that matter, you could do all other sorts of network analysis using tools built into your OS. Of course, Linux has more of these tools already installed by most distributions than Windows, but there are Windows versions of many of these tools.

traceroute and ping by themselves can be pretty englightening. They don't give you the complete picture, and for that you need to measure the actual throughput of your transfers. wget can be useful for that. Furthermore, if the ISPs/telcos were to purposely choke certain sites, you would see it terms of either bandwidth throttling, QoS or perhaps even latency injection.

Experienced network admins will have no trouble in determining if these things are in place using available tools. For the average user, the tools you list can be useful, but interpreting their results is best left to the professionals, IMHO.

(Disclosure -- I'm a well-seasoned network and systems administrator)

Re:I have a question about this, though

[Anonymous Coward]

Mr. Cumin,

What tools do you have that will measure throughput on the full gamut of TCP/UDP ports that various applications may use? Since their QoS/rate shaping is going to vary depending on app (and therefore port), you're saying that you have something that will allow you to do data streaming on all ports, to all potential endpoints (nearly all of which you don't control) so that you can measure what the telco is and isn't lowering QoS for/bandwidth capping?

I guess maybe you're thinking that they're ONLY going to do QoS based on IP/domain ranges?

Re:I have a question about this, though

[morgan_greywolf]

Why do you need to measure ALL possible endpoints? You just need to target the specific hosts/ports that you perceive a performance issue on and have a few control machines that you aren't finding a problem with. Even then, you what services a particular host is running, so you just need to do you timings based on valid requests for that protocol (i.e., http, ftp, bittorrent, etc.

And the name ain't Cumin, pal.

Re:Extortion? Not quite.

[TubeSteak]

How would you feel if the government sold the sidewalk leading to your front door and told you that you'd have to have your customers use the back entrance unless you started paying $50 a month?

Hey! Famous people don't feel special unless they get ushered in through a back or side door.

blog this

[matt328]

This guy's blog is ridiculous, he's either incompetent, or pushing his own agenda. Why wasn't the original article linked to in the story?

I disagree with said blogger's views. Log on for my blog entry at 11 and stick around for the /. news story about my blog entry at 11:05.

Re:This is a great day

[Ender_Stonebender]

I have three moderator points left. I just checked - still no option to moderate a comment as "-1, Huh?"

I doubt they'll succeed

[dbialac]

As I recall, AOL used to be a tiered internet site. They still are, but people who sign up for it mostly just use the internet. Oh, same goes for Compuserve, etc. Tiered Internet won't last because customers don't want it.

Isn't this backwards?

[Anonymous Coward]

Cable TV companies PAY extra money to content creators and providers such as HBO, Showtime, etc.

How did Internet carriers become more important than content creators?

I pay for bandwidth to access what I want, not for content from someone that pays the most to my carrier.

Google isn't using the bandwidth!

[fmaxwell]

Google isn't using bandwidth on my ISP's network. The users are the ones who request the data. If they blocked Google, then the users would move as much, or more, data via other search engines.

This idea is a non-starter: If an ISP stopped carrying Google because Google wouldn't pay an extortion fee, the ISP's customers would leave in a giant stampede. So don't get worked up about this. Remember that it's legal for a restaurant to charge for ketchup, but you don't see a lot of pay dispensers for ketchup.

Re:Google isn't using the bandwidth!

[myz24]

Except for those of us who have no real choice in ISP's. My only option for internet access that exceeds 256KB is cable.

Re:Google isn't using the bandwidth!

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

The ketchups not free. Its factored into every meal sold.

Re:Google isn't using the bandwidth!

[Anonymous Coward]

That would be a great analogy if there were only 1 or 2 restaurants.

Re:Google isn't using the bandwidth!

[fmaxwell]

Searching isn't free either. It's factored into the bill from your ISP. That's what you pay them for -- moving data.

Besides, Google is a low-bandwidth, primarily text, web page. One search on Google is way less bandwidth than loading cnn.com or downloading even a small application.

Re:Google isn't using the bandwidth!

[fmaxwell]

That would be a great analogy if there were only 1 or 2 restaurants.

It's a great analogy as-is.

Besides, there are many ISPs. Even if you have only one broadband ISP in your area, it's likely that they are part of a nationwide company (e.g., Comcast, AT&T, Cox, Road Runner, etc.). Any Google extortion fee would affect all of their users -- even in markets where there are many competitors.

Re:Google isn't using the bandwidth!

[fmaxwell]

Except for those of us who have no real choice in ISP's. My only option for internet access that exceeds 256KB is cable.

For most (non-geek) users, 256kb DSL with Google is way better than 5mb cable without Google. The ISP wouldn't risk driving customers to DSL.

Your ISP could cut costs now by blocking Google, but they don't do it, do they? They could block access to lots of high-bandwidth sites and applications, but they don't. Ever wonder why?

This foolish money grab is a huge error.

[Tiger Smile]

Sure we all love our phone, but Ma Bell just never learns. If they were smart they would cozy on up to companies like Google, not try to bash them about the head and sholders with crazy fees.

Their customers are paying for the access to those site. Double chanrging Google for something their customers have already paid for is crazy! And not crazy like a fox, more like crazy in Chuck Manson and family way.

But wait! It's even more crazy than that. Imagine you are an old out date slow to move non-inivator negitive contributor type of company. The last thing you would want to do is give these amazing inivators a good reason to give their minds and actions a motive to remove the need for your old company.

It's like watching 1982 Yugo (non-transforer) picking a fight with a well armed Voltron! Don't blink or you'll miss the fight!

What I also expect is a reaction on the subject of double billing. I did not signup for internet access that was cripled to a list of specific sites. Cripled only because I need or want to view them. I bank online. Are they going to make it hard to do that.

The Internet what the postal service was in the 1700's. It's our main form of communication. We send messages and other forms of information. We shop by catlog, bank, and use this medium to carry on our business and daily lives. I hardly every use the postal service. It I need something somewhere I use FedEx or UPS. So it seems that the Internet, to me, is much more important than the postal service. Why no interest in regulating fees like this on the internet, or outlawing them? Why? I'm sure government is very converned with the young slim vs old fat Elvis stamp.

I guess they imagine that most Americans do not vote. Sadly they might be right. We're too busy eating what our Tivo's feed us. Maybe we're not their "base." Maybe we don't toss enough dollars at their feet like they were pagan gods? But maybe a few more will vote, when this issues prevents them from Googling?

Government is the weapon of last resort. Once you use it everybody pays, but in cases like this I image, other than building a much better Internet, it a justified use.

Mod this guy up. A lot.

[Mateo_LeFou]

This is excellent and very forward-thinking.

And consequently way beyond the capacity of our govt. to process. Here's the Commerce Committee's meeting on spectrum reform:
Link

the potential of shared-spectrum tech did not even come up. Instead we got Mr. White of the "Progress and Freedom Foundation" repeatedly telling the committee that the electromagnetic spectrum is just like real estate.

Mr. White, congress, and friends: the spectrum is not just like real estate.

Re:Mod this guy up. A lot.

[unitron]

"Instead we got Mr. White of the "Progress and Freedom Foundation" repeatedly telling the committee that the electromagnetic spectrum is just like real estate."

From one point of view it is--'they ain't makin' any more of it'.

Re:Extortion? Not quite.

[Anonymous Coward]

extortion: to obtain from a person by force, intimidation, or undue or illegal power

Since we're talking about monopoly ISP's using their undue power to forcibly impose a tiered service model that artificially elevates the value of their content relative to the content provided by everyone else who uses their lines; using the government to possibly illegally intimidate folks who already pay for access to pay more; yeah, extortion is exactly the right word to use.

And so it goes...

[underpope]

I used to believe in capitalism. Really, I did. But the more I see how the government favors large corporations with a patent system that lends itself to such horrific abuse and an FCC which favors corporations over the needs of the consumers, it seems that capitalism -- or, at least, the state-sponsored corporatism which passes for capitalism in the US today -- exists primarily to minimize competition and ensure that consumers are locked in to one particular vendor. The chairman's statemtns just reinforces my opinion.

Re:And so it goes...

[hkmwbz]

Government regulation is the opposite of capitalism. Closer to socialism, as a matter of fact.

Re:And so it goes...

[underpope]

I'm not sure I see your point.

Re:And so it goes...

[hkmwbz]

You wrote:

"I used to believe in capitalism. Really, I did. But the more I see how the government"

As soon as you see how the government starts getting involved it's not capitalism anymore.

Re:And so it goes...

[underpope]

The current system doesn't seem much like socialism to me, since the government tends to favor large corporations over smaller corporations and the needs of the consumers. As it is, I believe that there does need to be a balance. While I'm not in favor of complete government control over industry, I am in favor of a fair marketplace. However, when the human tendency toward greed and excess eliminates the fair marketplace or starts to harm the public welfare, I believe that the government has a responsibility to intercede.

Re:And so it goes...

[hkmwbz]

"The current system doesn't seem much like socialism to me"

Regulating the market is closer to socialism than capitalism. Capitalism is about a free market, remember.

"since the government tends to favor large corporations over smaller corporations and the needs of the consumers"

That still doesn't make it capitalism.

Precisely

[CarpetShark]

Let's see who needs who.

Precisely. All of the internet's technology is open, and there's (apparently) plenty of dark fibre out there along with wireless and satellite, so there's no reason that those who want it can't band together and build a new internet (complete with anonymity or whatever else is desired) if it comes to that.

This will lead to increased innovation

[foolish_to_be_here]

I expect that it will increase innovation as people like myself, will seek solutions to bandwith issues. I can think of a couple of ways right now to by-pass their restrictions such as having your services run on nontraditional ports, creative routing around the backbone, or creating a private internet that tunnels through the traditional one.

Pop!

[HaydnH]

Just as I thought we were recovering from the dot com bubble burst this happens! Glad I don't have much invested!

Ain't gonna happen...

[Pedrito]

I stand by my comments when this topic first came up (Sorry, I'm not going to pay the subscription fee I apparently need to pay to get my entire comment history, so no link). I argued that if Google refused to pay the extortion, then nobody would and the idea would eventually die. A few days after posting the comment, Google announced they wouldn't pay the extortion. I continue to believe this idea will die on the vine. If access gets slow to Google because of it, all they have to do is add a link to their home page, to a page that explains why. Add in a few links for how to contact the phone companies to complain, and I guarantee you the phone companies will give it up when their support numbers get jammed.

I mean, I hate for this to all come down to one company, but of all the big tech companies out there, I'm glad that Google will be the one to decide. They've shown every sign of being a very socially conscious corporation (I know, it sounds like a contradiction). I'm not going to fret about this issue much.

Re:This is a great day

[babbling]

In Chess, the objective is to checkmate the King. Usually, this means that players need to value their pieces and prevent them from being taken. Sometimes, however, pieces are sacrificed for the greater goal of checkmating the opponent's King.

Microsoft's business does not rely on just the MSN portal, but Google's does. Google is expanding, however, which poses a threat to all of Microsoft's business. If Microsoft could manage to kill off all of the "areas" that Google is in, regardless of whether Microsoft is also in those areas, the result for Microsoft would most likely be a net gain. From a risk-management perspective, Microsoft would be wise to make some large sacrifices to see Google die.

I'm not saying that this is the strategy that Microsoft is taking, just that it would make perfect sense for them to push this idea, assuming they could...

The alternative.

[klubar]

Isn't there an alternative where popular sites like Google, ESPN, CBS (etc.) refuse to make their content available to subscribers unless their ISP pays a fee. This is more like the cable model where the cable company pays a fee to content providers.

It's not about Google

[IGnatius T Foobar]

Funny how they keep bringing up deep-pocketed Google as the alleged "free rider" (funny, I thought Google paid their ISP bills just like the rest of us) but Google is a straw man. This is just another blatant attempt by the incumbent telecom scumbags to "tax" Vonage and Skype into price parity with conventional telephone service.

Re:It's not about Google

[nickh01uk]

Theres a good take on why this has started to happen recently on a blog all about the Telco/ISP struggles of late. Its just a side-effect of the increasing consolidation among those who "own the pipes", an inceasingly desperate act to sweat more revenue from their investments, rather like a historical land-owner putting up taxes for peasant farmers on his land.
Nick

Ham radio to the rescue?

[amightywind]

I'm not a fan of government regulation, but if you eliminate the FCC, every Tom, Dick and Harry could build an inexpensive transmitter in their basement.

This makes me wonder why all of the Tom, Dick, and Harry ham radio operators have never organised to create wireless networks. Or have they? Does anyone know?

Re:Ham radio to the rescue?

[Squirmy McPhee]

It has been awhile since I was familiar with regulations on Ham radio frequencies, and I know that at least some of them have changed in recent years. However, there are restrictions on what frequencies can be used for what types of communication, and possibly on the amount of bandwidth that one is allowed to use. That said, some Hams have been using packet radio for decades. However, aside from having to be licensed, there are restrictions against broadcasting and commercial use -- Ham radio is meant for two-way communication between station operators. A Ham radio operator cannot legally pretend to be a DJ and broadcast music and advertising, for example. So while two operators could send data back and forth to one another (on certain frequencies, anyway), operating a Ham shack as an ISP would probably get your license revoked.

But then I could be wrong. After all, IANAHRO.

Re:Ham radio to the rescue?

[MrNiceguy_KS]

Also, anything broadcast over Ham radio cannot be encrypted. Not exactly what you'd want for a wireless ISP.

Re:Ham radio to the rescue?

[Anonymous Coward]

Quite true. I'm a ham, and we're not allowed to do a lot of stuff. Especially commercially related. We can setup WiFi networks, in fact... 802.11b and g are right in the middle of our 2.4 Ghz band. There we can use whatever antenna systems or power we'd need to create a link.

However, we're not allowed to push any commerical traffic over that. So even a web page with an banner or a text ad on it would be in violation of Part 97 in the US. We also have to be careful about the content. Our decency rules are far stricter than that of the commercial services.

But we are able to communicate with unattended computers. In fact, we have a large network of gateways worldwide which allow us to connect our radio networks to eachother via the net and of course to the rest of the net. We even still have the old school BBS. Not to mention our chat service, nodes, etc... It's a lot of fun! However, it'll never be a replacement for internet access. It never has been...

Although 10 years ago our network was very popular with hams because we provided free email. I know that my first email acct was a ham radio based one. I'd pop my mail down at 1200 baud on the 2 meter band. ;)

Let there be LIGHT!

[drewzhrodague]

Actually, I have tried to light dark fiber, and I was successful! It was during the dotcom days, in downtown Boston no less. The goal was to get a T1 installed into the office, but the install date was 3+ months away from any carrier. I hate Verizon more than I can describe, so they were absolutely NOT an option. In the machineroom was some fiber, and whatever termination box is used for that sorta thing. So, I called-up my buddy at a local CLEC, gave him the circuit ID, and he had it up and up, on, and running in less than a month (!!!). While I've never had this level of service EVER in 10+ years, it pays to know people, to call them, and to ask the right questions.

Then there was the issue with getting Cable TV, which the cable companies said wasn't available. Kinda strange since our office came with a bizarre A/V system, with multiple TVs. They really told us that there was no way to run cable to our office building. So, I did what any geek would have done, I went into the wiring closet, and connected the RF cable from the breakout box, to the other breakout box -- which was conveniently labeled with our suite number. Viola! Instant cable TV in a high-rise building in downtown Boston. I used to set up the TVs to play Star Trek TOS from the Sci-Fi channel -- y'know, with the closed captions. Gave the office a fun atmosphere, I thought.

Just because they say they can't do it, doesn't mean they can't do it, just that the person on the other end of the phone doesn't want to bother with it. Move around obstructive people, and you can move mountains -- or get your office lit.

Re:Let there be LIGHT!

[sumdumass]

I also know a couple people who work for the telcos. This isn't just instatutionalized lazyness. At one point in time some of them were denied contract raises with the excuse that "adding access to those taking advantage of the freedom of comunications act has supplanted the funds required to allow the raise".

In other words, the boss said that letting other companies use thier infrastructure is why they didn't get a raise. The regular workers are/were pissed that thier raise got placed on hold because "some other company can come in a use our equiptment and lines while displacing the profits that would have given use a raise". That came directly out of my friends mouth when I was talking about DSL and different service providers with him. I think it this was intentionaly done because union employies tend to hold grudges when they don't get what they want.

You had a friend who could see passed this bullshit and decided to help you out of a different alegence. The vast majority of people won't have that and I think will end up suffering the wrathe of a pissed off employee as well as a telco not wanting to give in. I imagine this is a stratigy used by all the telcos because it apears to just work.

On another note, I'm wondering how these companies can think they should have a tired internet. My understanding is that they took out agreements to let thier hubs (peering) be used by others when getting thier conection to the backbone. It was sort of a "shared hub system". If this is the case, then whoever controls those contracts to the conections to the hubs should charge enough "more money" to offset this difference. In other words, if SBC wants to charge google for access to thier networks, the SBC backbone conection should be split and they should be raped for access to the backbone. This can be done without interupting thier telco service by replacing SBCs internet activity form a tier1 provider to a tier2 ro tier3 reseller. Soon SBC would find it couldn't provide internet service and have to revert thier stratigy. Believe it or not SBC and other companies aren't the internet they have just placed equiptment and lines into play that extend it to thier areas. They already charge access by bandwidth from the traditional tiered down system were they charge those on thier networks for passing thru it. This is important because it apears that it might be voiding oe violating other contracts they have in place. It is a shame when an ISP decides it is perfectly ok to double dip the consumer for profits. I'm also wondering if SBC or other top level ISPs can now become liable for content and actions hapening on thier networks because they would be activly screening content and delivering it based on royalties. I don't see how a simple peering exception to certain laws could still hold true in reasoning if this is allowed to happen. I can see SBC starting to do this and becomeing responcible for hate speech, porn and mabey other content.

Re:Let there be LIGHT!

[tgrigsby]

Two thoughts on this:

1. When trying to get cable 'net access from Comcast to my wife's salon, we were told they couldn't string a cable to her suite. Which was odd because a) the Comcast building was RIGHT BEHIND her suite, and b) the folks next door had cable TV. What the -? Only after I put up a page on her website slamming Comcast and saying we would be going with Verizon did they decided that, "Oh, wait, yeah we think we can have that ready by this weekend..."

2. So you're stealing cable TV and fiber 'net? Hm.... Y'think your local telco is auditing their lines right about now?

"Could this be the end of internet innovation?"

[wherrera]

Cetainly not the end of innovation. A flexible Internet will tend to route around obstacles such as these of bottlenecks for certain applications or servers. A consumer shift to the newer WAN networks might be helped out by short-sighted telcos who limit bandwidth to less than the new WAN's, for example :).

Re:"Could this be the end of internet innovation?"

[pavera]

Unfortunately if this does go through, more than 90% of all internet users at some point use AT&T, Verizon, or Qwest. Almost all internet traffic hits these networks at some point (try doing a traceroute to a few hundred sites, see how few don't sit on or across one of those networks). Even newer WAN networks will have to use the telco's for backbone access, and there lies the rub. If they are allowed to do this, it will be the end, no one will be able to create a new and innovative web service, because as soon as it gets popular their ISP bills will go through the roof as they have to pay extra just to keep their site up and functional to 90% of all US users.

Basically what they are proposing is double billing all successful internet companies, you pay your regular ISP bill (to XO, or whoever) and then you pay your "User access fee" or "Backbone Access Fee" directly to the backbone providers for however many users they determine went from their network to yours, and you'll get a bill from each "backbone" provider separately, it will be an impossible mess.

What this should do is make P2P technologies the only way to provide a decent internet based service... If you can get your customers to host your service for you somehow so that all of the hits to your site are spread out all over the internet in a P2P manner, then the telcos won't be able to bill you like this, but that's the only way I can see to get around this.

Shortly after the FCC officially approves this

[Todd Knarr]

Shortly after the first FCC-approved implementation by an ISP, we'll see this:

Google announced today that, effective immediately, ISPs who wish enhanced bandwidth when using Google's services can obtain it by paying the nominal fee of 1 cent per kilobyte of transit. ISPs who do not wish to pay for enhanced access will retain normal best-effort access to bandwidth not used by those entitled to enhanced access. A Google spokesperson said "The ISPs are the ones who think this is a good idea, we're firmly committed to letting them live by their beliefs.". Elsewhere, ISPs expressed outrage at this idea, and fear that they'd be forced to either pay for enhanced access or lose users due to degraded access to the most popular search engine. Google responded by quoting back the ISPs' own statements about how providing enhanced access for a fee was not degrading service for those who didn't pay.

GRAH! UHR!

[Pfhorrest]

GOOGLE SMASH!

Tesla coils

[drewzhrodague]

Yes, Tesla coils can be fun! I can't wait until I can print hundreds of thousands of LC circuits with my inkjet...

Read Me.

[VeryHotTopic]

The term "extortion" is biased. The blog incorrectly quoted the chief. End of story.

End of internet innovation?

[null-sRc]

...or the start of the mass migration to non-tiered googlenet...

Tiered internet already exists

[f00zbll]

Clearly the FCC is an idiot, because tiered internet already exists.

ISP already have different access plans for those who want more bandwidth. From a consumer perspective, it is already tiered and the consumer decides how much they want to pay.

on the hosting side, it is also tiered. Providers generally fit into 3 tiers

tier 1 - backbone providers who have their own fiber
tier 2 - access to tier 1 providers. some have their own OC1OC3 for redundancy
tier 3 - access to tier 2 and 3 providers. tier 3 generally don't own their own fiber and lease bandwidth from others

Clearly, the telco's are already charging twice for bandwidth. Once from the consumer to access the internet and once from the business for hosting and bandwidth. To allow telco's to extort more fees is flat out wrong. The FCC A$$hat needs to be fired

Re:Extortion is a little strong, but the FCC is wh

[vidarh]

Some sites consume an inordinate amount of bandwidth and we can't expect someone to foot the bill for that for free.

Nobody are asking that. Sites pay their ISP. Users pay their ISP. The ISPs pay eachother, or agree on interchange agreements.

Ultimately, all traffic on an ISPs network has been paid for either by their subscribers or through interchange agreements - either in bandwidth or cash.

What these telcos wants is to get paid twice for the same service.

Reminds me of Turner's attitude

[Anonymous Coward]

AT&T's attitude reminds me of the Turner executive who said using TiVo to skip ads was stealing.

Time for Google to step up

[Chuqmystr]

What I mean is all that dark fiber they've been buying up needs to get put to use and soon. They need to turn that stuff up and terminate it however they can, be it wifi, a few select neighborhoods with fiber-to-the-curb experiments, private telco co-ops in rural America, whatever they can deploy. The reason being is so that they can get some sort of fledgling WAN in place before these telco bastards can grease a few more politicians and get it made into law that it's illegal to run any sort of WAN not created and maintained or blessed only by the telco. Call me paranoid but it sure seems we're well on our way there. Motherfucker Bell has an old score to settle with we customers for our insubordination back in the '80's.

Google Angry! Build WiMax Net! Kill Telcos! Arr!

[wsanders]

Really, why the hell not?

You have it backward

[Secrity]

"I think telcos are justified in charging companies for their real consumption of resources."

AT&T's customers are paying AT&T for the bandwidth that AT&T is providing to them. "Some sites consume an inordinate amount of bandwidth and we can't expect someone to foot the bill for that for free."

It is AT&T's customers who consume (and pay for) the AT&T provided portion of the bandwidth for the data that they request from Google.

What AT&T should be saying is that the bandwidth intensive services are increasing their costs and that they they need to increase the flat rates that they charge their customers, or charge customers based upon usage. AT&T may not be able to do either because charging customers may not be possible and charging Google for consumer access ain't gonna happen.

let the FCC knows this sucks

[neojd78]

http://www.fcc.gov/commissioners/martin/mail.html

Isn't spam the largest source of bandwidth?

[Anonymous Coward]

Shouldn't they be trying to block spam, and that will save them tons of bandwidth? Not that they are hurting for bandwidth or anything...

-nosebreaker.com

To Paraphrase....

[Flaming Cowpie]

..."People should not fear their governments. Governments should fear their people." - V

Hell, I'm willing to march on Washington on this one. You can take my packets when you pry them out of my cold, dead hands.

I don't know why people think this

[2008]

If my ISP redirected my Google requests to, say, Yahoo I'd be annoyed for a couple of days then just get on with it. They could send them to search.msn.com, which is a bit of a Google lookalike, and most people wouldn't notice. It's just a search engine.

Some of the other services, particularly Gmail, could be quite a big deal, but do many people actually have Gmail accounts? And not just ones they registered out of curiosity? Google's neat stuff is new, I did without it a few years ago so I could again pretty easily.

Amateur Radio / RTFA

[everphilski]

I believe the FCC is one of the most unconstitutional departments in the Federal government and completely destroys the reason why it was set up in the first place. If the airwaves are public property, why are they regulated to the point that no one but the elite can access them?

ARRL would beg to differ. Private individuals can do all sorts of stuff on the public airwaves for next to nothing. Private individuals even have satellites in LEO.

Take a look sometime at the amateur radio allocations and the power allocations - amateurs can use up to 1,000MW on many bands (and you can communicate to ISS and satellites on as little as 0.5W if you are good) - there is room for everyone as it stands right now.

It is time for a second Internet to come into action -- one that is voluntarily connected, one that is run over cabling (or satellite) connections that are not subsidized by any government regime.

Amateur radio kinda has that ... RTTY. Its not the flashy internet we have here but its data transfer over the airwaves.

If you would have read the damn article - yes it was confusingly worded, read the links, and the summary is wrong - you would have realised the rep. from did **not** say that it was OK for AT&T to "extort" companies like Google, but rather he said it was OK for them to offered tiered internet **access** at different price points. I quote:

"Any provider who blocks access to the Internet is inviting customers to find another provider," Whitacre said in his keynote speech. "It's bad business." He then emphatically stated that AT&T would not block independent services, "nor will we degrade [Internet access]. Period, end of story." (Whittacre, AT&T)

However, Martin also added that he supports network operators' desires to offer different levels of broadband service at different speeds, and at different pricing -- a so-called "tiered" Internet service structure that opponents say could give a market advantage to deep-pocket companies who can afford to pay service providers for preferential treatment. (Martin, FCC)

guarantee?

[apathetickKoward]

Not that I agree with tiering the system...But if this is rammed through they should at the very least guarantee that my connection speed will be at the rate that I paid for. Good luck with that...If you are trying to create a tier you at least need a baseline like cable TV, if I want premium channels I pay for them, but at least I know I get them and when they are not working. I think there are too many variables to be able to bill somebody on throughput speed.

well well

[FudRucker]

since i do not make my living requiring an internet connection when the internet begins to cost more than what i deem reasonable i will gladly cancel my internet connection and use my computer for strictly offline use, (digital file cabinet?, accounting/checkbook balancing?) print documents?) computers are still usefull even without an internet connection, and with a small LAN i can write my own web pages and just make my own intranet :)

The mind boggles...

[Anonymous Coward]

New innovative sites [...] places like Slashdot and Digg.

If the whacky left is paying attention

[Anonymous Coward]

this could be a clincher for a silent majority of techies. Don't make a big deal about it...

The wording should be something along the line of intentionally degrading customer services and/or addressing the extortion-like practice.

I'm not big for the left, in fact I think every dead feminist is a good feminist but this kind of shit needs to be nipped in the butt.

Re:If the whacky left is paying attention

[Bassman59]

I'm not big for the left, in fact I think every dead feminist is a good feminist"

My guess is that you don't get laid much, if at all.

Google has several options

[dcavanaugh]

1. As others have suggested, Google could impose their own extortion fees on the telcos. As Capt. Kirk said in Star Trek IV, "Double dumb-ass on you!". This would be kind of sleazy, but they might create a fee structure that targets only one of the telcos, just as a demonstration of power. Making Google an ISP-paid "service" is not really any different than the cable channels who charge the cable operators (instead of the subscriber). Note to telcos: "Be careful of what you wish for..." Not that I really want them to do this; the threat works best if it never has to be carried out.

2. Google has TONS of cash. They could actually BUY one of the telcos and compete directly.

3. Alternatively, they could buy lots of dark fiber (or start running their own).

Google has $8B in assets with no long-term debt; there is almost nothing they can't do. If anyone can squash the dumb idea of paying telcos fees over-and-above what should be an all-inclusive use of the Internet, it's Google.

More of a hit to Microsoft and Yahoo, actually

[melted]

More of a hit to Microsoft and Yahoo, actually. Google saw it coming. They've purchased dark fiber to protect themselves against that. They're also actively exploring wireless. If tomorrow Google starts a WiMax network where I live and charges $20 for access (instead of Verizon's $45, with all the taxes and extra fees), I'll dump my Verizon DSL. In fact, if there's enough bandwidth, I'll even dump Verizon landline and switch to VOIP. Suddenly, my monthly communications bill will be $45 instead of $80 and Verizon won't get a dime of it.

Now MS and Yahoo - they haven't seen this coming. They'll have to pay through the nose for bandwidth. And so will smaller web sites and service providers whose users don't use Google internet access. So Google gets their own private internet on a silver platter from short-sighted, greedy, incompetent morons in Cable companies and telcos.

Electricity and Water

[archetypeone]

TCP/IP should be a utility just like Electricity and Water. This is unbelievable. Are utility companies going to start charging companies more just because they have a good idea and want a piece of the pie? Google's likely response - buy a small landline carrier or satellite company or wireless company and give AT&T the finger...

I didn't think it was possible....

[Anonymous Coward]

...but this clown is even worse than the general's brat.

Stand up and do something about it

[dreohio99]

We can all "talk" about how terrible this is but that is wasted energy. Instead why not put that energy in doing something about it. Our government is a government of the people, for the people, by the people. If we do not like what they are doing we need to call them on it. We have become such a passive society that we seem to no longer have the spirit to stand up for what we feel is right. Instead we just complain about it to others who likely feel the same way. The big corperations who have grasped hold of our government thru there lobbying and political donations have us by the... well you know what I mean. It is time to take a stand. Let us start with this issue before they ruin the internet. Below is the contact information for the chairman and commissioners of the FCC. This information is readily available on the FCC website and is public domain. I would also suggest contacting your representatives in congress. http://www.congress.org/congressorg/directory/cong dir.tt

• Kevin J. Martin Chairman (202) 418-1000 Kevin.Martin@fcc.gov
• Michael J. Copps Commissioner (202) 418-2000 Michael.Copps@fcc.gov
• Jonathan S. Adelstein Commissioner (202) 418-2300 Jonathan.Adelstein@fcc.gov
• Deborah Taylor Tate Commissioner (202) 418-2500 Deborah.Tate@fcc.gov

FCC General Contact Info

[dsraistlin]

Email
You may send a General complaint to fccinfo@fcc.gov

By Phone
If you have questions or need assistance filing a complaint, our Consumer and Mediation Specialists are available Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. ET. Call Toll Free: 1-888-CALL-FCC (1-888-225-5322) voice, 1-888-TELL- FCC (1-888-835-5322) TTY.

Send General complaints by fax Toll-Free: 1-866-418-0232
Public Comments location
http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/ecfs/Upload/

The Following Phone Numbers are from the FCC's Website and are public so have I hope people let them know how we all feel about this stupid issue.

CHAIRMAN Kevin J. Martin (202) 418-1000
Confidential Assistant Lori Alexiou (202) 418-1000
Chief of Staff Daniel Gonzalez (Acting) (202) 418-1000
Special Advisor/Deputy Chief of Staff/Emily Willeford (202) 418-1000
Staff Assistant/Vivette Hart (202) 418-1000 Senior Legal Advisor/ Catherine Bohigian (Acting) (202) 418-1000
Special Assistant/Susan Fisenne (Detail) (202) 418-1000
Legal Advisor/Michelle Carey (Detail) (202) 418-1000
Staff Assistant/Shandria Dixon (202) 418-1000
Attorney Advisor/Fred Campbell (Detail) (202) 418-1000
Administrative Management Specialist Tommi Greely (202) 418-1000

COMMISSIONER Kathleen Q. Abernathy (202) 418-2400
Confidential Assistant Ann Monahan (Detail) (202) 418-2400
Legal Advisor Lauren "Pete" Belvin (Detail) (202) 418-2400
Senior Legal Advisor Russell Hanser (Detail) (202) 418-2400
Legal Advisor John Branscome (Detail) (202) 418-2400
Staff Assistant Teri Swinton (202) 418-2400

COMMISSIONER Michael J. Copps (202) 418-2000
Confidential Assistant Carolyn Conyers (202) 418-2000
Senior Legal Advisor Jordan Goldstein (202) 418-2000
Legal Advisor Paul Margie (202) 418-2000
Legal Advisor Jessica Rosenworcel (202) 418-2000
Staff Assistant Betty Morris (202) 418-2000

COMMISSIONER (202) 418-2100

COMMISSIONER Jonathan S. Adelstein (202) 418-2300
Confidential Assistant Amber Danter (202) 418-2300
Senior Legal Advisor Barry Ohlson (202) 418-2300
Legal Advisor Scott Bergmann (202) 418-2300
Legal Advisor Rudy Brioche (202) 418-2300
Staff Assistant Tajuana Dill (202) 418-2300

Extortion

[Esion Modnar]

can go both ways. If the NFL and the Teamsters can strike, so can Google. Any ISP that threatens to try this multi-tiered shit, needs to have some attitude correction by having their Google shut off for a few weeks. Bad for the users, I know, and some would say grossly unfair to them, but it's the price of subscribing to an ISP with evil intent.

My only reservation is that it would signal a beginning to a fragmentation of the Internet. A kind of digital civil war where ISP's ban other ISP's over business squabbles.

How is this possible?

[Efialtis]

Simply, if Google is already paying for a T1 line or an OC3, or whatever they are paying for, they are paying for a specific bandwidth.
Why would I buy an OC3 only to be limited to DSL speeds? Unless I pay 3 or 4 or more times what I was originally paying just to get the full use of a line that I would have expected to provide full use anyway...
This won't fly.
People will find other ways, or simply stop using the internet. They will set up private networks, or a "peer to peer" internet (which makes sense) and Google would have to provide their own way to interface, most likely, through a different or private vendor of services.

The best and easiest way to nip this one is to simply STOP USING AT&T...cancel your home service, cancel your cellphones, cancel your long distance, cancel anything that AT&T is providing for you. If enough people move from AT&T to whatever other service provider, AT&T will change their mind.

--E

Side effect

[Jahf]

If they dynamically limit bandwidth, this could have one interesting side effect: fewer slashdotted sites ... since the traffic pegging the server would be lowered.

Re:on the other hand.... your wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Say what now?

If I send a letter to someone and they write back, they have to pay postage. Don't see much difference between this and the current internet (both sides talk, both sides listen, both sides pay something). Just like I pay to call someone, but they have to pay to have a phone to talk back.

For the record, I hate the double-tiered internet idea as presented, but I don't see much wrong with the way it is now*. I pay for 6 mbit down, so I should get to use it all. Google pays for 1000 hojillion mbit both ways and should get to use it all. This whole new idea of "You pay for X down and they pay for Y up, but we'll throttle your conversation at a lower rate because they don't pay our traffic fee" is just stupid and should be illegal.

Now if ISPs wanted to make it so you could pay a fee to make traffic go to customers faster then their pipe would normally allow... I guess I would have to be ok with that. i.e. SomeSuperMovieSite.com pays comcast/at&t/etc an extra fee to be able to send traffic to all their customers at 10 mbit even though the customers would normally only be allowed to download at a lower rate. That is an actual service that they probably should be able to provide, just like you can pay to have expedited shipping. However, this is an off the hip opinion, I'm sure there could be problems with allowing this.**

* Of course, there are those stupid ISPs that say "We'll give you 6mbit/sec down, but if you use too much we'll throttle you, and you don't get to know how much is too much." That's wrong too. I guess I should have said "I don't see much wrong with the way it is supposed to be now" :-P.

** Like say, the ISP taking up all of the customers bandwidth while visiting SomeSuperMovieSite.com so they can't visit SomeOtherMovieSite.com. Any other ideas?

Libertarians decrying LACK OF regulation? Huh?

[Dr. Spork]

What the fuck are you talking about? The issue here is that ISP's are threatening to charge money to carry certain data on their own networks. Remember, mr. Libertarian, the ISP owns its wires and can do with them whatever they like. Right? Well, that's not what I think, but if you're dumb enough to be a Libertarian, that's what you have to think.

So if they want to charge money for traffic on their wires, and shut out sources that don't pay up, you are the last person who is entitled to complain. I think this is the perfect place to regulate the actions of corporations. I think the FCC deserves our scorn for refusing to regulate this. They're hurting socitety, undermining equal access and compromising innovation. But this is exactly what you bastard Libertarians have to want them to do. Go move to Somalia, you Libertarian piece of shit. Their government certainly conforms to your ideals better than ours. And stop trying to turn my country into Somalia!

Re:Libertarians decrying LACK OF regulation? Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_James_Sidis

I guess a 200+ IQ is dumb enough to be a libertarian.

As far as I'm concerned little facist democrats who think giving big brother all the power will make the world nirvana are dumb as animals. The problem with giving the government all the power is that politicians only care about their own interests.

You call him a 'libertarian piece of shit'.
You know what? I think you are a druggie socialist piece of shit.

Direct Email Form to Chairman

[dsraistlin]

Found a more direct route.
http://www.fcc.gov/commissioners/martin/mail.html

Parent is correc too.

[PetriBORG]

Everyone seems to worry about Google! No ISP is going to block Google search EVER. They may "degrade" Google video, Google VoIP, or other new services Google offers.

What the parent means is exactly that, if ATT degrades Google's anything, Google should just block all ATT customers from their site for one day with a message saying "Google is unavailable in your area due to policies with your ISP ATT, please call ATT customer service at [number]."

That is what the parent is referring to, and you are exactly right though, its the little guy with that new hot idea which ATT wants. That truly is the worst of the problems. The internet needs to be fair, and if everyone pays their local ISP no other local ISP should have the right to screw with those messages. The ISPs should be treated very much like a common-carrier (regardless of them not being).

Limit Telco Access

[Anonymous Coward]

Wouldn't it be ironic to begin building out Internet2 further, in a different way that (in reverse) limited the Telco's use and access. Unlikely scenario.

The idea of a tiered Internet is absurd. They want to offset the cost of building out their network to support the customer demand; we are the customers who are already PAYING for access. Charging Google, et al, is nothing short of extortion and double jeopardy.

Won't traffic get automatically rerouted?

[frdmfghtr]

Straying from what was actually said about tiered access for end users, I'm going to look at "tiered prioritization" which seems to be the actual topic being discussesd.

Here is the scenario I picture; I'm not a network guru by any stretch of the imagination, so feel free to correct as necessary.

Company A uses ISP A for connectivity. User B uses ISP B for connectivity. Now, ISP A and ISP B are not connected to each other directly, but via other networks C, D, etc. either in series or parallel or some combination. The point is that there is no direct connection between the two ISPs.

Network C says "Hey, Company A sure has a lot of traffic going through our network, and they aren't paying us a single thin dime. By golly, if they don't pay us, we're going to put a lower priority on their traffic!"

This is what appears to be the scenario that is being discussed at great length.

If network C did in fact throttle down the traffic from Company A, wouldn't the traffic automatically re-route around company C, treating the throttling as congestion?

A point that also seems to be lost is that "what goes around comes around." Sure, a network might carry a lot of pass-through traffic, but traffic that originates on that same network is likely pass-through traffic somewhere else. It would seem that, ideally, some sort of reciprocity would exist: you don't try to hammer our customer's pass-through traffic and we won't hammer yours.

End of Internet innovation?

[booch]

No, it's more likely the end of my business relationship with AT&T/SBC.

URL for "New Yorker" article

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's a link for the article mentioned:
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/articles/060 320ta_talk_surowiecki

Re:URL for "New Yorker" article

[smellsofbikes]

informative. I had no idea they had the TOTT stuff online that quickly. Next time I'll do my research first.

There is a easy to do/hard to live with solution

[Beached]

The content providers and websites should use something like rbl to blacklist ISP who implement this. When enough sites do so, the ISP will have no choice when the customers take their business elsewhere. Help the market decide. This will suck for the clients who cannot get what they want, but they will complain when face with a message from numerous sites stating that their ISP is broken.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Make your thoughts know about this issue.

[NoPhD]

May your thoughts known about this issue send a message to the source. Chairman Martin's Contact Information Room: 8-B201 Phone: 202.418.1000 http://www.fcc.gov/commissioners/martin/mail.html

Check his background - stance is no surprise

[moonsammy]

I'll admit to not r'ing tfa and only skimming the comments, but as soon as I read the summary my initial thought was "I'll bet my pants this guy used to have a vested interest in at least one company that would benefit from tiered access." So I wikipedia'd his name, and what was the fourth paragraph?

Martin worked several years for Wiley, Rein, and Fielding, "Rated Top Telecommunications Lobbyists" according to an article on their website. The firm represents the Bells as well as Viacom/CBS, Gannett, Belo, Emmis, Gray Television, and Motorola.

A telecoms lobbyist, what a shock! The cronyism is Bush appointees is pretty much absolute, so this probably shouldn't surprise anyone. Here's a link to his wikipedia entry, for anyone interested.

blogger can't read...

[dwandy]

the blogger is wrong here.

He seems to have trouble reading in general terms. Check out his closing note about google where he says that Google is in clear violation of copyright law. If you actually use or look at Google books you will see that they not only provide maximum two pages from a book, they provide links to buy the book you've just found. Not only (IANAL) is this not a copyright infringment, it's helpful to the book industry. I suspect that the lawsuit is just a cash-grab - they want a piece of Google's ad revenue as well as the increased sales google books is going to provide.
It's business RIAA style: When making a profit is not enough, sue someone for more.

What a perfect argument for abolishing the second

[2short]

Right! We'll just use guns to eliminate the FCC! I'm not clear on the details here, short of reducing the whole country to violent anarchy, nor why it is assumed the side with tanks and nukes will lose, but oh well, let's ignore that for now. If we did get rid of the FCC, we wouldn't have any of that pesky regulation, and everything would be wonderful. Nevermind that the article is complaining (wrongly) that the FCC is threatening to NOT regulate something the poster (and most here) think it SHOULD regulate; we should definintely resort to (futile) armed violence first and attempt to actually understand the issues second.

You, sir, are a perfect example of someone who should not be allowed to bear arms.

FCC is Right: No Free Lunch in this Life

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no free lunch in this life. If you use a resource more than someone else, you should pay more for that resource. That is a basic principle of economics.

Charging companies according to generated bandwidth is fair and reasonable.

Let me just say

[Aqua_boy17]

As someone who uses the Internet regularly, I for one am certainly against a tired internet. Mine is slow enough already. oh...wait

READ THE #$^%$% Article!

[cfulmer]

If anybody actually reads the story detailing what Martin said, it isn't ANYTHING LIKE what this blog comment says. All he said was that if an ISP wants to charge its SUBSCRIBERS differently for different types of service, they should be allowed to. But, that's exactly what ISPs do now! I can pay my cable company an extra $20/month and get a higher bandwidth connection. The big argument is around whether ISPs should be able to treat content differently based on payments from the content providers, NOT whether they can treat subscribers differently based on subscriber payments.

Also, recognize that although Martin is the Chairman of the FCC, he does not have unilateral power to decide how the FCC will regulate the Internet -- there are 4 other commissioners and they each have a vote.

The central question that Martin was trying to address (and, from the sounds of it, did a lousy job) was whether the FCC actually had the authority to enforce network neutrality. He asserted that the FCC does, citing the Madison River case (where an ISP blocked Vonage). However, that case came before the FCC reclassified DSL & Cable Modem services as "Information Services," which are subject to very little regulation.

Contact Information for the FCC Chairman...

[maillemaker]

http://www.fcc.gov/contacts.html

Federal Communications Commission
445 12th Street SW
Washington, DC 20554

Phone: 1-888-CALL-FCC (1-888-225-5322)
TTY: 1-888-TELL-FCC (1-888-835-5322)
Fax: 1-866-418-0232
E-mail: fccinfo@fcc.gov

Chairman Kevin J. Martin: KJMWEB@fcc.gov
Commissioner Michael J. Copps: Michael.Copps@fcc.gov
Commissioner Jonathan S. Adelstein: Jonathan.Adelstein@fcc.gov
Commissioner Deborah Taylor Tate: dtaylortateweb@fcc.gov

I would pay for a tiered internet in TFA...

[Anonymous Coward]

not what is mentioned from the blurb.

Yes, I would pay more for more bandwidth... wait, isn't that already how it works and how it has always worked?

I would pay extra for guaranteed latency. I imagine a huge portion of PC gamers, console users and VOIP users would as well.

Drop my 10Mb/1Mb to 3Mb/512Kb and give me 1Mb/1Mb "latenceed 40ms" for the same price. The area of affect would be limited but once ISPs start growing this guaranteed latency network together they'll all make money (are you listening?).

You pay more for a 3mb line...

[lightyear4]

You pay more for a 3mb line..

...than most people outside of the US pay for a line 10 times thats speed.

What they're really trying to sell you

[Anonymous Coward]

Disclaimer: I don't work for that part of the phone company, and can't predict the random behaviour of executives, and this is definitely my opinion and not intended to be the opinion of the phone company about anything, but this is what it looks like they're really trying to do...

• They're either running Fiber To The Home, or Fiber To The Green Box then Latest-DSL-variant To The Home, depending on which company, geography, distance, etc.
• That gets *them* about 20-40 Mbps downstream for DSL, or for fiber it gets whatever fraction of the shared feed is available right now (e.g. GigE fiber to your home, but 50 homes are fed by an upstream GigE and there's a splitter in the Green Box.)
• They'll sell *you* whatever Internet bandwidth they think you're willing to pay for - if you're buying 1.5 Mbps now, or 3 Mbps, or 6 Mbps, or 10, they'll be happy to sell that. They might sell you more, or they might not, depending on how long it takes the market to sell them a clue.
• They'll also sell you some of those access bits as television - 15 Mbps is enough to give you an HDTV channel and about 3 LDTV channels. That doesn't mean that you can't use *your* Internet connection for TV also, it just means they're also selling you additional access bits for television, connecting to some set-top-box thing.
• Unlike Internet-based TV, where you get content from anybody and there's full bandwidth from the content provider to your house, they're planning to multicast the content to the telco office or possibly the green box, and then unicast the channels you're currently watching onto your access line to your set-top, so they save a lot of cost of upstream bandwidth.
• For TV content, maybe the telco will pay the TV content providers, maybe the TV content providers will pay the telcos - it'll be the same sorts of negotiations the cable TV companies typically have. Presumably the telco will be paying HBO, but The Infomercial Channel will have to pay the telco.
• For Internet content, if Google's got enough bandwidth at their end to feed you 3 Mbps and also feed every other DSL provider their full-rate bandwidth, then you'll get it - if they don't have enough, they can go buy more.

The difference between a patriot and a criminal...

[maillemaker]

Mr Dada- your implication is clear- and I question the intelligence of anyone who posts that kind of threat on a public board. The FCC, like any gov't organizations, can overstep its bounds. And if you don't like it, it can be changed with your vote.

While I don't think it's time to break out the rifles just yet, just remember this:

The only difference between patriots and a criminals is which side wins.

The Founding Fathers were all criminals - until they won.

Don't assume that your vote will be meaningfull forever.

That's it.

[shoptroll]

Heck with Bush doing damage to the country that will take years to fix. This FCC has repeatedly mucked stuff up and will take a very long time to undo.

Totally insane.

And at Digg they are so intelligent

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you cracked

How to take care of this

[jgoemat]

Consumers have a choice in which service providers to use. If the big players that will have to pay (Google, Yahoo, etc.) can get together and say they will not allow traffic from any provider that requires a fee of any type from them. I know I would switch ISPs to keep my access to google...

Well, I learned a lot

[Mateo_LeFou]

Okay, my source was a cursory reading of this.

Sounded convincing to me. But I believe you (too)... if I want to "drop any stupid carrier like the Bells" (Verizon in my case) how do I do that? Get another ISP or build a home hotspot, or _________?

I like your pleadings

[cyberscan]

I like your pleadings. Unfortunately, 'we the people' have long ago made it a habit to depend on our enemies for sustanance. This is one reason we are in our situation today. Rather than working at supporting and depending on each other to meet our needs, we have turn to the likes of Verizon, Safeway, Walmart, Krogers, as well as governments. Before exercising our Second Amendment guaranteed RIGHT, we should stop to think about how we are going to meet our basic needs. Those who think that freedom will be earned by arms ( or cable cutters ) alone need to study history. Look at some countries in Central America or Africa. Many people of those countries struggled and fought to remove repressive governments only to find that the government they installed to be equally repressive. How many people today even know the family living a 1000 feet away or even the family living next door. I hat to say that in America, many do not. Technology has prograssed to the point to where we can conduct filesharing (news spools, movies, programs, music and so on) independent of the telephone cartels. A tremendous about of information can be held in a box of DVD's. Wireless routers, access points, and bridges can be used to transmit data from one point to another. Lasers can also transmit vast amounts of data. Even electric lines are now being used to pass information. Computers traveling (in an automobile) from one location to another can be used to convey information from one point to another. We are no longer dependent on monopoly controlled Internet to have information sharing in which anyone can be a producer or consumer. What is needed are people cooperating with each other to get the job done. For a world wide network, what is needed is protocol to specify the physical location of the information requester and information source. Participating computers in between can then be used to pass information onto the next point and so on. Shortcut links can be used where there are few obstructions. Computers that are nearby can also serve as source for information if they have the requested information on their harddrives. High speed, low cost information sharing networks can also be local. This type of network is know as a Muninet or Freewan ( http://www.plaza1.net/FreeWan ). The biggest step in regaining our freedom is to stop depending on those who stifle that freedom. I regards to the freedom of those who work daily to make ther people's lives miserable, ostricism is one way of dealing with the problem. Creative uses of technology is another way.

The economics are *much* different than that

[billstewart]

You've got just about all of the pieces of the puzzle wrong, both economically and technically.

• VOIP phones don't run media-stream bandwidth from the caller to the service provider unless they're going to an off-net gateway. A service provider typically runs a presence server, but the actual voice call goes between the two callers. Handshaking with a presence server uses very low bandwidth, a few kilobits every N seconds, while the media connection is typically 20-80 kbps for voice depending on compression and IP overhead.
  And yes, Google needs to buy bandwidth on their end. It's a lot cheaper per megabit for them, because they're buying gigabit quantities of the stuff, than it is for you, where the biggest cost is the wire to your house.
• Telcos aren't losing a lot of customers to VOIP - they're losing them to cell phones, and especially losing second lines to cell phones (also to DSL replacing modems.)
• Telcos make money selling voice service, usually charging $15-20/month for a combination of wire rental, old expensive telco switch connections, intra-LATA distribution, taxes, and detailed billing. They do get some revenue for delivering long-distance calls, or calls from competing local telcos, but since long-distance typically costs about 2 cents/minute, they're not getting subsidized they way they did when phone calls cost 25 cents/minute.
• Telcos used to rent wire to CLECs for about $20/month, for lines with no phone service on them. I gather that price has gone down a lot since then, at least for shared lines, but the cost of the wire probably wouldn't go up by more than $10 if you didn't get a phone with it.
  
• Long-haul bulk bandwidth is appallingly cheap, on a per-megabit basis - prices have been in free-fall for close to a decade, and it's a highly competitive market, and when players do go bankrupt, which used to happen pretty often, they sell off their fiber for pennies on the dollar to other carriers who cut their prices even faster. When it gets sold to consumers, it's heavily oversubscribed. Even bandwidth across oceans has become cheap. And while long-haul carriers do run cables across oceans, they don't dig tunnels under rivers, etc. - they mostly use railroad right-of-way, where all they need to do is trench, and the big problem with tunnelling under Interstates is that the highway departments are extremely uncooperative, so instead you build connections much farther apart than you'd like.
  
• Are long-distance telcos doomed? Yes, of course, and while you probably didn't notice that most of them were making their money selling private and Internet data services to businesses rather than selling minutes to consumers, you probably have noticed that they're getting bought by local telcos (except Sprint, which is basically becoming a cellphone company after its Nextel merger.)
• Local telcos probably aren't doomed - they're making money running wires to houses and office buildings, and if it gets connected to DSLAMs instead of #5ESS switches, that's not a huge deal for them. They're trying to find other revenue sources like TV, and they're buying ISPs and long-distance telcos and each other, but they'll probably stick around.
• Fixed Wireless (WiMax, 802.11, etc.) is an interesting competitor - scalability turns out to be an extremely hard problem, and the long-distance telcos tried for years to get it to be an effective competitor to wireline telcos, without much success. It's making progress, but it's slow, and the Cable TV companies were always too clueless about anything except television to use it effectively.
  

Re:The economics are *much* different than that

[router]

Posts like this make me wish I had monthly moderator points. Nicely done.

andy

I plead the series.

[Anonymous Coward]

Mr Dada posts his little "I have a dream" post every chance he can. The problem as you all have demonstrated is that it fails several litmus tests. Assholes is only one of the problems his scheme has to overcome. Economics is the other.

"This is not true, actually. First of all, transmitters sending more than a minimal signal are costly -- a 50,000 watt transmitter on one frequency would costs thousands a day in power. To broadcast over a wide range of frequencies would cost millions."

He can't even get this right. While there may be a given cost for a given power, all frequencies aren't equal. Two as already pointed out, one doesn't need lots of power to get a message (or even noise) across.

"Secondly, I promote the idea of freq-hopping software radios that utilize technology designed to avoid interference. In my own neighborhood there are about 20 WiFi access points I can see, and I still get great wireless networking at my home. We're sharing bandwidth here, and while there may be some problems, the situation is getting better in an minimally regulated spectrum. Open up the entire spectrum the FCC monopolizes and you'll see much less interference, not more."

Technofaith is cute especially when the faithful has no understanding of the physics behind it. One and two can be taken care of by mass marketing. Three however is just plain physics, and gets worse as more people are added. Oh and did I mention, all frequencies aren't equal (neither are antennas).

"Thirdly, I believe in the power of the market -- the current need to design better freq-hopping transceivers is not very high due to the regulations out there. Over time, though, I believe we'll see more deregulation of various frequencies as the need for more wireless transmissions goes up. I can only hope it happens sooner rather than later."

Well setting aside his "faith" in the market, his argument about the need not being very high because of regulations is false. The need isn't being driven by regulation but by the same force that has always driven development. Economics.

"Look at all the wasted bandwidth right now. We have digital and analog TV, digital and analog radio, cell phones, FRS, and dozens of other "regulated" bandwidths. This is all data -- and digital data is more efficient -- so why not work to slowly deregulate more and more bandwidth so more and more people can take advantage of it?"

Digital faith rears it's head. digital isn't always the best solution to a problem. Plus as I'm certain some of you have witnessed. Analog degrades gracefully. Digital can use FEC, but FEC isn't a "free of cost" solution and takes away from the message.

"Do we NEED analog and digital TV frequencies anymore? Cable and satellite have replaced MOST people's needs for broadcast media, yet BitTorrent is starting to hurt the old media companies, too. Why not use it all for whatever data the user and the sender both need?"

The faithful are often noted for living in their own little world. One cable or satellitle isn't always a solution for everybody. The reasons range from can't get, all the way to can't afford (the same issues Mr Dada's solution will have to face). Two MOST don't have (or can get) broadband (you know...that thing that powers every slashdot business model).

In short DaDa is long on hyperbole, and short on reality.

For all those who...

[Irvu]

1. supported this administration for other reasons.
2. Have faith in the "Power of the market" to do what is
           desired
3. THink that Politics is someone else's problem.

This is your reward.

When you supportthose who think that Business is always right, and turn your back on the world to watch TV this is what you get. The people who seek only profit will dive in and claim that which we all share, as theirs and theirs alone. These people are the bandits at the Oasis charging fees for all who come by. They didn't make the oasis, they don't feed it, they simply want to charge for access.

Now would be the time to look at groups like the EFF and/or write your Senators, your House Representative, and yes even The White House. Be sure to emphasize both how wrong this is and how much it will damage business, especially small businesses. The Large companies Amazon, etc. will be fine if companies in your area want to go online this will put unnecessary and illogical hurdles in place. That should get their attention.

The remaining question is what would happen with common carrier status. In brief all telcos, are not legally responsible for the content that they carry (child porn, plans to blow up buildings) so long as they carry all content equally. Such a plan as this would put that in joepardy and, in the long run, would cut their profits by forcing them to play censor.

I'm sure that the Bush Administration is salivating over the idea of making all the telcos surrender it (thus making them responsible for all content that they carry and making them the censors). But I'm not sure if the Telco's shareholders want their money to be spent purging the net of "adult media". In the end the cost of doing business would be higher for them. This is what short-sighted business managers get you.

So there is what needs to be done. Take a half hour today and do it!

"The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

Re:For all those who...

[beeblebrox]

This is your reward.

Not quite. The honor belongs to those who let the telcos gain, and keep, last-mile monopolies, via the bait-and-switch of universal service, even after that had ceased to be an issue due to low cost of provisioning a basic telecoms service.

Credit should also go to the fans of the Internet version of universal service, which made the bait-and-switch easier to apply to Internet (and later broadband) service.

When a new right is invented for one group, another group has to pay for it. When the cost connection between the two groups is obscured, that cost will go up.

In the case of the "right" to Internet access ("digital divide"), the inflated cost is the telcos' last mile [mono|duo]poly.

In the case of protecting the "right" of children to access a sex-free Internet unsupervised, combined with their parents' "right" to not see an extra line item in their ISP bill, the inflated cost is going to be loss of freedom and higher prices due to increased barriers to entry for ISPs.

No, the cat does not "got my tongue."

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

> "[FCC Chief] Martin made it clear in a speech yesterday
> that he supports such a a "tiered" Internet." Could this
> be the end of internet innovation?

Instead of whining, why don't you guys suggest that people only buy services from companies that [b]refuse[/b] to tier their services?

"We don't slow down your access to Yahoo and Google because they don't pay us extra" makes for [b][i]some very good advertising copy.[/i][/b] Growth ensues, the tiered companies start shrinking, and abandon the tiering.

You guys sound like people who whine about Walmart opening a store in their little town, how horrrrible! But then they end up shopping there even before the "mom and pop" stores go out of business -- if they even do.

This can't possibly be legal!

[martinultima]

And furthermore, the guy who originally thought up this idea is a complete jack– ERROR 509, OUT OF BANDWIDTH

Re:Extortion? Not quite.

[JourneymanMereel]

That's called a tax and it already exists... A better analogy for this so called "tiered Internet" would probably be if SBC bought the sidewalk in front of your shop, Comcast bought the one in front of the side door. SBC theatens to set up a checkpoint outside your shop and take up an extra minute of each customers time before they let them in unless you give them an extra dollar per customer. For the time being, Comcast doesn't. Note that both these companies already charge the customer $30/month to use the sidewalk at all. People are, of course, going to start using Comcast. But what happens when Comcast also decides to charge you $1 per customer or else they'll put them through the time wasting procedure. Now there either needs to be a new door or you have to start paying the extortion fees to avoid loosing customers to the chicken down the street that's already paying.

Missing the point

[adamdeprince]

Pushing aside claims of censorship, market forces, extortion, there is a more fundamental issue behind this. Its about the commoditation of you the internet user.

Historically how have you purchased internet services? If you are seeking to operate a server you might pay per kilobyte, if you are a residential user its flat per month. Whatever the specifc arrangement, the ISP provides a utility, access to the "NET."

This is similar to how your water, electric or phone service works. Your price per gallon is independent of who drinks the water; your electric bill is independent of who uses the electricity, and your telephone fee is a product of distance and duration independent of who you are calling. Access to "the internet" is the same.

Let us consider how residental access is provided. Traditionally, residential services are grossly overcommited. This is for a good reason, home users are much more tolerant of fuctuations in available bandwidth and latency than, say, teleoperated surgery might be. Likewise, home users are more cost sensitive. The cheapest way to provide such service is to just let people pile on your fixed capacity pipe until it fills. The natural model for any link on the internet is an M/1/Q queing model (forgive, I've forgotten the nomenclature.) Ironically, the $/bit model that many hosting services use isn't as close a match of what is really happening.

The single drain is set to be considered "enough" on the basis of the subject experience for the typical user; when it isn't more fiber is laid.

I'm taking this two places at the same time. If you look at it as a que, any prioritization automatically means that non-prioritized traffic is inpeded. Perhaps they will argue that they are providing a special dedicated channel; again, that's an artifical distinction, ISP's routinely add capacity as Moore's observation makes it economical for their clients to demand it, and for them to provide it. Spliting your channel in two now, or with the next upgrade is only a shell game.

The second direction to examine this from is that of their relationship with you. Telecos frequenctly make the claim "Google steals access to our customers." I disagree. First of all, I am not the teleco's possession. I use google , instead of my ISP's favorite engine because like every human, my thoughts, opinions and prefereces are sovergn. Google gets my traffic because I choose to type "google.com" in my browser, not because I am a mindless consumer waiting for the television advertisement to tell me what to type.

This claim is ethically the same as trying to claim "Dominoes Pizza uses our network to steal pizza sales from Ma Bell Pizza." Again, each and every indivdual is soverign in their pizza preference. My hometown's "Denville Pizza" gets my bussiness for reasons that are personal and specific to me: their pizza is good and cheap. My telephone company has no title to my preference because I use their proprietary and expensive investment to contact my pizza dealer. And, I'm already paying for my access.

I propose a hypothetical feature for telephone networks called "Priority Circuit." For an extra $100 per line per month, your customers, friends, family, whomever, move to the front of the line for routing and circuit selection.

Now, what is the value I ask? Currently, our phone network has 5 9's of reliability. The only time in my life I've regualrly received an "all circuits busy" message was the afternoon of 9/11/2001. Aside from that, its so rare that its memorable, I count only 3 or 4 times in my life.

What is the value added to this? Why would I bother paying for more reliability beyond what I have? The telephone company, like your ISP or any other bussiness can only sell a product if there is a compelling arguement to be made for its sale. The only detail that makes this bussiness model, or rather racket, financially sound is the unwritten promise that I'll have troble placing orders to my pizza joint really soon.

Re:This is a great day

[Anonymous Coward]

"Microsoft's business does not rely on just the MSN portal, but Google's does."
Google's business relies on just the MSN portal? When did that happen?

Stock up on ammo

[Jason Straight]

It's time for a revolution!

TROLL [was: Re:OK! Let's have open airwaves!

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't have all the answers,

Understatement of the year.

I just know that over-regulation ... is not it.

So you vigourously push for ... total de-regulation.

At least as useless as over-regulation, but always argued from the point of view of a partisian zealot: -5 Troll.

Somebody regulates it

[matt_tucents]

For each obstacle, technology has a way to circumvent it; The media conglomerates wanted to make money off of physical media distribution, so customers went to software P2P. The RIAA started sueing people for swapping music, so their customers turn to anonymous services and encrypted links. The telcos' greed wants to rape their customers by triple-dipping, their customers go to wireless meshes.

There's always a way around this stuff, it's just a matter of finding the proper technology. Onion Routing, Port Forwarding, Encrypted links, wireless hotspots across several neighborhoods. It rapidly becomes a matter of the telcos providing only the link between cities; and even that can change to their detriment if they whipsaw people long enough.

end of internet innovation?

[nurb432]

No, its the end of the internet. Something will still exist for those that care ( and pay ), but the 'internet' will cease to exist.

"Metered Use"

[nurb432]

Im sure metered use is not far behind. 50 bucks get you connected, but if you want to USE it, its a per byte charge. More if you want to actually access content not provided by your isp.

What garbage. "Golden Goose, meet hatchet"

OT -- your sig

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't understand your sig. Are you retarded or is my ability to detect sarcasm completely fucked today?

Re:OT -- your sig

[LWATCDR]

It is an example of spin. During the same newscast I heard a broadcast where the news caster talked about the right of 14 year old woman to get an abortion and story about 17 year old boys being tried as adults and going to jail.
It doesn't matter if you are pro choice or pro life, or if you are for stronger penalties for juvenile crime.
You can not truthfully say that a 14 year old is a woman and a 17 year old is a boy. One may be true or both may be false but both can not be. The news caster called the 14 year old a women to try and make her seem like she is adult enough to decide if she should get an abortion without parental approval and in the same broadcast they called a 17 year old a boy to show he wasn't not adult enough to be tried as an adult for a crime he committed.
It is pure spin.
If you don't spot it is an example of LWATCDR's first law. If a news source reinforces your viewpoint you will never almost never see their bias.

What most people never understand is the spin that is the most dangerous is the one that reinforces your viewpoint. The News source that is the least useful to you is the one you will believe the most.
Every liberal should watch FOX news. Every conservative should listen to NPR. And both should try and keep an open mind.

ITYM...

[Mr2001]

Well, you amy be right,
[...]
if something is confusing or unclear spend the extra 45 second to get more information.

I think you misspelled "confusing or nuclear". HTH.

RTFA

[rdean400]

http://www.networkingpipeline.com/news/183701554

Most of what the FCC chief is backing is the concept of offering consumers different levels of bandwidth based on how much THEY pay. Web connections to the internet are the same deal.

The big objection, which I don't see clearly addressed in this article, is the _consumer's_ ISP charging websites for bandwidth.

Re:RTFA

[flyneye]

I already get bandwidth based on what I pay.
That has been around for some time.
Guess he means something more.
It would be ok to expect the worst and quit sugarcoating bad news brought by thieves and liars.
There is NO "good" reason for the FCC to exist.
The role should be simplified and left to the office that created the FCC.The position is clearly more than greedy bureaucrats can handle without babysitting.

Re:This is a great day

[AndreiK]

What the grandparent means is that Google is a web-portal, and all* of their services use the internet as a content-distribution and ad-revenue source. If the internet drastically changes to either fragment or remove much of that profit, Google is practically dead.

However, if that happens, MSN will be in the same boat, but Microsoft does not only rely on MSN for revenue - in fact, most of its revenue is from other sources, so the move will in effect kill Google, and sacrifice part of Microsoft's business.

*) Google sells enterprise search hardware as well, but it isn't as big a revenue producer as AdSense.

Somebody regulates it-"/."-Bravado.

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, for a group that can't even be bothered to stop buying consumer goods, let alone writing a letter to their politician. You all have grandiose ideas of what you can do if you don't get your way. Color me unimpressed with your group's bravado.*

*Oh, and I wouldn't get my hopes up too high that others will fight your battles for you.

Trust Busting

[ClamIAm]

I think something must be done to stop the growth of the media/communications cartels. Right now, when you look at the media conglomerates and communications giants, most of them own media production companies as well as communications infrastructure (or in the case of Sony, consumer electronics). There's a huge conflict of interest here. Comcast or Time Warner is going to want people to buy "their" programming, instead of searching Google for something else. It's like Ma Bell, Standard Oil or Microsoft. They don't want to give up their obscene profits, so they resort to paying off the government and using illegal tactics to remain on top.

FCC Contact Information

[Anonymous Coward]

How to Contact the FCC

To Contact the Commissioners via E-mail

Chairman Kevin J. Martin: KJMWEB@fcc.gov
Commissioner Michael J. Copps: Michael.Copps@fcc.gov
Commissioner Jonathan S. Adelstein: Jonathan.Adelstein@fcc.gov
Commissioner Deborah Taylor Tate: dtaylortateweb@fcc.gov

Let them know what the consequences of their proposed actions will be.

Whas aunt martha gonna do now?

[3seas]

I'z suppos to call aunt Martha five time a week cause she can't afford cal me. but now, eben with me paying my phone bill they want to make who I call also pay..aunt Martha can't afford dat... what we gonna do now?

I red som wherzs dat telco are using VOIP digital instead of analog for long distance cause it cost dem less, so why is I payin more?

But if sites get to much traffic and they gotta pay, does that mean I get free service?
If so, who gonna pay mostly? Google or the porn and online gaming industry?

Re:on the other hand.... your wrong

[lars_stefan_axelsson]

Oh well not entirely. Because on the internet BOTH parties pay. Google pays a hosting bill as well. Bit like you would need to pay a subscription fee to receive mail as well pay for postage for sending mail.

Or rather Google would pay, if they were smaller. But since they're so big, they actually peer with the larger providers. Imagine two mail providers if you will (let's call them DPS and UHL), instead of DPS paying an extra fee to UHL for each letter that goes from a DPS customer to a customer on UHL's net (and vice versa), they instead come to the agreement that "Hey, as we're both sending each other a lot of mail, why not just call it even, and not pay each other anything for that."

That's what irks AT&T nee SBC, they actually don't get paid by Google. As Google is so big they can just threaten to take their ball and go home.

Mesh network

[TakeyMcTaker]

I've often thought wireless mesh networks, like Zig-Bee, and wired routing equivalents, could be used to create an alternative ultra-high-bandwidth high-latency alternative IP network. Houses are close enough, and high-bandwidth multi-hundred-meter wire connections cheap enough, that transport to someone in the same neighborhood or city would be faster over such a network than any current ISP can provide.
        Think 8-port LACP copper gigabit trunks on cheap "managed" switches, with firmware altered to route over a static mesh topology -- creating a gigaBYTE neighbor-network with a one-time cost-per-node less than a 2-year (discounted) DSL contract. 10-Gb copper links are bound to come down in price within a few years too. If enough households/apartments/offices joined in, with enough geographical border members creating ad-hoc distance links (with parabolic focused WiFi or lasers or something), the traditional long-haul telco-monopolized fiber network could be avoided entirely. It would be of limited use for real-time services like VoIP outside a local region, due to the high number of hops, and require the insanely high IP-address count of IPv6 just for routing. It would require a lot of friendly techs and hackers to help the non-techs complete their links, and to provide ad-hoc DNS services, but the OSS community already shows that level of generosity is possible.
        I'm sure plenty of pirates would be happy with PTP e-mail, slow IM, and enough bandwidth to torrent a BD-ROM in under an hour. The FCC's lack of ability to provide against localized ISP monopolies might just drive the rest of us to join them.

This is really good idea

[Anonymous Coward]

as long as one doesn't live in the land of the [no longer] free!

No FCC means the rest of the world will retain only one internet and innovation will simply leave the US behind.

Just don't tell John Howard about it, cause he might feel this is a good idea...

Blogger is a fucking moron.

[hkmwbz]

Either he can't read, or he is a liar. Either way, he is a moron, and should not be allowed to publish his garbage anywhere.

Here's another example of his lies: Has Google Become More "Evil" Than Microsoft?"

His text: "and won't label any of those links advertising, or call the preferred listings advertising, even though they clearly are ads"

The actual fact: "Technically, AOL will pay for those links, which will be identified as advertising"

Someone should do a writeup on this guy and get him fired.

Re:Blogger is a fucking moron.

[thedletterman]

Just another idiot that doesn't understand what he has read, and makes sensational arguments.

Welcome to the internet.

That line is bullshit

[Snap E Tom]

http://www.supergeekblog.com/?p=198

Surely :)

[Anonymous Coward]

What a great idea !

    The companies give a load of loot to the telcos. The telcos stash it away in CEO benefits, offshore accountes, ... oh, and a few major shareholders see some of it, too.

    The money the company hands over is partly taken away from tax-exempt charities - and from user or visitor services. Of course, the telcos just might invest in meaningful charities as much of what they 'gain', as the companies shall have ceased to. Argue that possibility over with yourself.

    Users or visitors, offered less at greater expense and generally more difficult or benagged access, tend to visit less. Since these are major hosts, Internet use drops off. People then tend to see less reason to pay as much for it. Telcos and providers start losing internet revenue. Users will get more meagre plans, more closely bound to the telcos and 'partner' providers.

    It looks like an old scam. Or does anyone except me remember AOL's stirring 'contributions' (not) to free internet and email - since the days of 300bps modems and BBs's ?

    With such brilliant and enterprising initiatives, those days might be making a comeback.

    Oh, and the 'released' bandwidth will then be available for piping more fox news or on-demand-whatever directly to the living-room/bathhouse/....pay-per-view-trailer-par k-terminal.

no, they are not

[tacokill]

I think internet connections are a public utility.

No, it isn't. Public utilities have a public utilities commission setup to insure that each locale has a means for resolving disputes. Electricity is setup this way in most parts of the country. So is POTS telephone service (not VOIP). It is specifically setup to prevent abuses. Like for example, the power company shutting off your power and demanding $10,000 to turn it back on. It puts restrictions on what they can do with their product and what they can charge for their product. And they do this because "everybody needs it". I, personally, think the internet qualifies for this treatment and until it is deemed a public utility, we will continue to fight the network providers over things like tiered pricing, filtering, etc.

Internet access is a private transaction between private entities. It is NOT a public utility. In no way, shape or form.