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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[grimwell]

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

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

My $0.02

[robyannetta]

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

Google really should block AT&T customers

[rjreb]

Let's see who needs who.

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

[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.

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.

[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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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: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?

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: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?

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?

Don't make google angry

[aapold]

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

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.

"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.

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.

[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.

[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.

[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: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.

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.

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: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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.