Slashdot Mirror
The Cost of a Tiered Internet
An anonymous reader wrote in to mention a Popular Science article about the money issues involved in a tiered internet. From the article: "With a tiered Internet, such routing technology could be used preferentially to deliver either the telecoms' own services or those of companies who had paid the requisite fees. What does this mean for the rest of us? A stealth Web tax, for one thing. 'Google and Amazon and Yahoo are not going to slice those payments out of their profit margins and eat them,' says Ben Scott, policy director for Free Press, a nonprofit group that monitors media-related legislation. 'They're going to pass them on to the consumer. So I'll end up paying twice. I'm going to pay my $29.99 a month for access, and then I'm going to pay higher prices for consumer goods all across the economy because these Internet companies will charge more for online advertising.'" Update: 05/26 16:54 GMT by Z : The article is hosted on CNN, but is original material from Popular Science. Post updated to reflect this.
I'm sorry, I don't see the "bad" in this situation.
All kidding aside, that's a spectacularly bad idea. The internet is about freedom. I would just like to see a law saying that if you are prioritizing services, you must disclose this to the customer and potential customer, in addition to telling them what consideration you receive for doing so. That way, consumers can make an informed choice.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I don't mean the idea of net-neutrality, but rather the idea of service providers charging content providers extra.
That is, as long as there is competition in the Internet bandwidth space. I don't know what it's like now, but back in '99 or so there was quite a bit of competition as these companies were fighting to get the business.
So google.com has a internet connections coming in from AT&T, and AT&T says "You have to pay us extra because you are google". What's google going to do? They're going to call around and find someone else to provide the service.
Unless all the ISPs get together and collude on rate structures, which would be illegal, competition is going to solve this problem.
Frankly, it's just about the dumbest idea that the communication companies could have ever come up with. Not only won't it work, but they're giving themselves a black eye by looking greedy.
The article talks about selectively prioritizing data streams, which does seem almost evil on the face of it.
But what if they left the existing infrastructure in place and focused offering on enhanced access to paid sites through selective, local staging and caching (such as leveraging telco-based Yotta Yotta or Akamai implementations)? It seems reasonable to charge for this, it doesn't really impact the rest of the world, and it could enable much faster access.
Ok, it does sound a little bit evil. But certainly far less than deliberately routing non-paying sites through lower bandwidth lines.
You really think it's a good idea to have big government barging and telling people what they can and can't do on the internet? Wasn't one of the cool things about the internet was that it was supposed to be independent from government regulation and control? That it would allow for experimentation and innovation for both individuals and businesses, and not be told what we can and can't do?
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
the only reservation i have is regarding spam and viruses. should it make you less of a common carrier if you refused to transport malware?
There are a number of sites online with information on this issue. You can take a look at the save the internet coalition at www.savetheinternet.com. One thing that I strongly suggest people look into is a cooperative effort between moveon.org and of all people, the Christian Coalition. They are teaming up to afford a $70,000 ad in the New York Times. That will really get people talking and see that there couldn't be a more Bipartisan issue out there. 2000 people donating $35 gets the ad. I've already given my money: https://civic.moveon.org/donatec4/save_the_interne t.html
From the article: "On a technical level, creating this so-called Internet fast lane is easy. In the current system, network devices called differentiated service routers prioritize data, assigning more bandwidth to, for example, an Internet telephone call or streaming video than to an e-mail message."
Easy did they say? What planet are they on? Every time a packet crosses a carrier, the priority may or may not be paid equal attention to. I wouldn't think for even a second that AT&T will treat Verizon's prioritized packets with as high a priority as their own customer's prioritized packets.
Even more misunderstood is that the last mile makes much more of a difference than the backbones. If your local ISP doesn't care about the differenciated services settings, all the money Google, Yahoo, and Disney shell out for better streaming video performance won't add up to much. The Disneys of the scene will eventually figure out that they paid for the privilege of slowing everybody down, not speeding themselves up. That should be an interesting fight.
Easy...
"We are all geniuses when we dream"
- E.M. Cioran
I have no objection in ISP charging web sites for being accessed, it's their right to do so, it's their fiber etc. Well theoretically. The *real* issue is that ISPs have a quasi monopoly. In fact it's a fairly natural monopoly, there's no point in companies digging parallel pipes in the ground. The same problem could arise with electricity. The energy providers can't really do evil, but what if the guys who own the cable starting charging the appliance builders to work with electricity. In the end it all comes back to owns the fiber... even if a monopoly controls it, it can't do a lot of damage since a competitor could profit and start placing evil-free fiber. Google anyone?
\u262D = \u5350