Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Businesses Your Rights Online

The Future of e-Commerce and e-Information? 187

Posted by ScuttleMonkey from the bad-for-the-internet-good-for-business dept.
An anonymous reader writes "The Washington Post has an interesting article on what they label 'The Coming Tug of War Over the Internet. From the article: 'Do you prefer to search for information online with Google or Yahoo? What about bargain shopping -- do you go to Amazon or eBay? Many of us make these kinds of decisions several times a day, based on who knows what -- maybe you don't like bidding, or maybe Google's clean white search page suits you better than Yahoo's colorful clutter. But the nation's largest telephone companies have a new business plan, and if it comes to pass you may one day discover that Yahoo suddenly responds much faster to your inquiries, overriding your affinity for Google. Or that Amazon's Web site seems sluggish compared with eBay's.'" Seems like the idea of the 2-tier internet is really catching on with the market-droids.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Future of e-Commerce and e-Information? More

The Future of e-Commerce and e-Information?

Comments Filter:

  • OR (Score:4, Interesting)

    by AviLazar ( 741826 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @11:51AM (#14539460) Journal
    I stop using telco-DSL (not that I do, but many people do). This is a bad thing to happen - eventually the telco's will start blocking ISPs who tell them to F off. I am hoping a telco will do something stupid like block Microsoft, Google, yahoo, Ebay, Amazon...block one of the big names and watch how half your business goes down the chute. And let's not forget, this is absolutely ridiculous - the website I go to is not using the telco's lines, I am using telco's lines to retrieve the information...it is like asking my mom to pay for a phone call when I call her - absolutely stupid.

    • Re:OR (Score:5, Insightful)

      by dasil003 ( 907363 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @12:02PM (#14539576) Homepage
      Just like the music industry, the telcos better wise up. This whole phenomenon of creating markets out of thin air, and boosting profits by price manipulation rather than innovation is a serious threat to our economy. Only in a first-world country like America do we forget that an economy is supposed to represent some actual goods and services. This is exactly why China will surpass us, because we've got so much money that everyone's trying to scam a piece of the pie without actually doing anything.

      Unfortunately it's inevitable that big companies will be too slow to adapt to an evolving economy, and they will push their bulk around trying to grab as much profit as possible before hitting the mat. That would be all fine and good if they didn't also control the government in the absence of a cohesive counter-interest.
      • In the end, the people who will be paying these extra fee's are the users - and probably more (hey if I use twenty website services I will have to pay for twenty sites who now have inflated costs). What BellSouth and the rest shoudl really do is tell their customers "we are raising your rates"...They won't because they will lose more customers to cable internet providers - who althought charge more, offer speeds that are two-five times as fast if not more.

        I find it amazing (in a good way) that google is
        • Congress isn't the answer here. Supply and demand is good enough. There will always be an ISP willing to supply cheap fast bandwidth regardless of what dumber comapnies do. The worst case isn't the horrible future everybody seems to foresee, rather it's simply a split between smart and uninformed shoppers. This is similar to the AOL users who page $20+ for a $10 service. Many users, and eventually most users I think, will eventually see ratings of ISPs based on latency and bandwidth. Our money will go
          • Congress is the answer. It will not be supply and demand if it is written into law, and that is what the telco's are trying to do. Once they have the law behind them, they can do as they please. So yes, we need Congress to vote our way - against the telcos. This is not an issue about an ISP supplying cheap/fast service, it is about the telco's charging other isps - and in the end that charge will come down on us. This has nothing to do with things like AOL people surfing at 20/month for a 10/month serv
          • There will always be an ISP willing to supply cheap fast bandwidth regardless of what dumber comapnies do.
            Except that ISP has to get bandwidth from someone, and the bandwidth is basicaly the telcos. Sooner or later it comes from the the telco's because they are the ones that run the backbones for the internet.
        • I find it amazing (in a good way) that google is saying "hey if we have to pay, we can afford to, but it is the little upstart guy who won't be able to pay and that sucks"...
          Consider, also, that Google may be positioning itself [com.com] to work around the telcos if they pull a stunt like that. No fools, they.

          DDB

    • Re:OR (Score:4, Insightful)

      by sosume ( 680416 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @12:06PM (#14539611) Journal
      When this happens, content providers will have to begin rolling out custom Wimax networks. If you cannot reach Google very fast through YaHooFi, but you can through GoogliFi, which in its turn blocks Msn.

      It won't be long until the pc owners will combine their own Wimax access points and form a completely free unwired network. This is inevitable.

      • Re:OR (Score:2)

        by Erwos ( 553607 )
        Doesn't thise sort of assume that WiMax is on a non-licensed spectrum? IIRC, WiMax is going to be operating on a licensed spectrum...

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

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

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

        First, even as the telco's admitted the content providers do pay them for access to the net already. Also, let us say I have cingular and my mom has verizon - Cingular does not charge my mom for the call, verizon charges her per her agreement. In this model - that BellSouth is proposing, Cingular would charge my mom to be able to have a better (well faster speed) conversation with me. Wh

      • Re:OR (Score:2)

        by Maclir ( 33773 )
        When I was living in Australia, I had a cell phone. I didn't pay for incoming calls. I paid a monthly fee, which included so many "minutes" of outgoing calls, and I paid for outgoing calls that exceeded that allowance. I rarely paid more than $15 a month.

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

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

    • Re:OR (Score:2)

      by MikeFM ( 12491 )
      I agree. If the telcos fuck with the users to much someone will just come along and make a lot of money by supplying a better experience. In this day and age they can't rely on not having compitition. I'll switch from any telco that behaves in this way the same as I've switched for other misbehavior (such as charging by usage rather than unlimited or firewalling my access to certain ports). Do they really think that trying to blackmail companies like Google won't make it into the media? I can only imagine G

  • Capitalism (Score:2, Insightful)

    by PlayCleverFully ( 947815 )
    Isn't this the basis of capitalism?
    Competition creates better products with lower prices.
    This is capitalism on the internet at its finest.

    • Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @11:56AM (#14539512)
      Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • Not everything in life is about competing. Christ, I swear that there are some capitalists who'd love to license and market the very air we breathe.

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

      • Re:Capitalism (Score:3, Informative)

        by Intron ( 870560 )
        The Internet, like the road system, should be open to everyone for the same rates.
        I guess you didn't get the memo [irs.gov]
      • It's amazin that the AC grandparent is moded as Troll. He is RIGHT, goddamn it!

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

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

    • Re:Capitalism (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Jah-Wren Ryel ( 80510 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @12:19PM (#14539744)
      This is capitalism on the internet at its finest.

      Telecoms are public utilities. This is not capitalism at all, it is the abuse of a government granted monopoly.

      Kinda funny how that other government granted monopoly, copyright, is also being used to attack the usefulness of the internet. Perhaps there is a pattern here.

      • Re:Capitalism (Score:2, Informative)

        by whyrat ( 936411 )
        The Telcos are no longer a government granted monopoly. In fact the government broke up a "monopoly" into the "baby bells". But that's beside the point, the phone companies have to compete with each other and are REQUIRED to share their lines... but not for free.

        It's interesting: when the government forced them to divest into several small regional companies; "competative" market forces fought it out (with major scandals asside... MCI) to give us a bunch of mergers back into a few large companies.
    • capitalism should be regarded as a tool, not as the founding principle of a society. Solidarity could be regarded as an example of a founding principle (and is in fact the founding principle of most human societies including USA).

  • Small question: (Score:4, Insightful)

    by TripMaster Monkey ( 862126 ) * on Monday January 23, 2006 @11:52AM (#14539470)

    From TFA:
    In a November Business Week story, AT&T Chairman Edward E. Whitacre Jr. complained that Internet content providers were getting a free ride: "They don't have any fiber out there. They don't have any wires. . . . They use my lines for free -- and that's bull," he said. "For a Google or a Yahoo or a Vonage or anybody to expect to use these pipes for free is nuts!''
    Perhaps I'm missing the point here, but aren't the end users paying for these pipes? I know I'm certainly paying enough for mine...
    • AT&T haven't exactly demonstrated clear, logical thinking in the past, so why start now?

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

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

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

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

        AT&T 1881-1983 is the "telephones are ours. Ours! OURS!" guys.
        • AT&T 1984-2005 is the deregulated AT&T

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

          Noticing anything here?

    • Re:Small question: (Score:5, Interesting)

      by gothzilla ( 676407 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @12:01PM (#14539557)
      What was that story not so long ago about Google buying up dark fiber everywhere?
    • Yes, the users are, but the telcos want more. That seemed to be the gist of the article.
      Imagine I'm AT&T. For a fee, I'll give priority to traffic to/from your website over that of competitors. The endi user get's to your site fast, and since Americans are impatient, the theory is that consumers will stop going to your competitors and go more to your site. Then your competitors pay the fee. And so on...

      From an end-user standpoint, we've become accustomed to an internet that doesn't prioritize traffic. H

    • Re:Small question: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by p00pyhead ( 945377 )
      You are paying for bandwidth? ok. you will now pay for latency.

    • Re:Small question: (Score:5, Informative)

      by arivanov ( 12034 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @12:15PM (#14539700) Homepage
      Entertaining...

      In 1998 BBN Planet had the same whinge about Exodus. It even stopped their peering with them. It did not last. Users demanded it being turned back on and it got turned back on.

      Even more entertaining....

      Since 1997 a large portion of the non-US Internet has been using QoS. Been there, done that myself. The world did not end from traffic being prioritised, limited and otherwise bastardised left right and center. It continues to be bastardized and this is posted across a bastardization like this. It has gone through. There were cases where idiots tried to use this otherwise beneficial tool to extract more commercial advantage out of the network or their market position. They are now all bankrupt and their assets are broken down and sold around. There is a limit to the gain possible here after which users start to leave for other ISPs.

      Super entertaining....

      ATT has been running diffserv for god knows how long. In fact it is the only ISP that used to state as policy that it will honour an incoming diffserve markings(dunno if they still do). It is phenomenally entertaining to observe the fact that the knowledge about this has reached a PHB somewhere up there. He should be congratulated on finally understanding some of the technology behind his network about which engineers have been speaking for the last several years.

      Whatever... Move along... Nothing new here...

      If they wall off content completely the users will eat their arse. If they drop it under some SLAs the content owners will once eat their arse. The reason has nothing to do with common carrier. Nearly all content providers are directly connected to Tier 1 networks in the US. There are no public peerings left. It is essentially negotiated transit and there are legally binding contracts to slap an overly inventive BellDroid across the wrists. And if a content provider does not have a good transit manager it is their fault. It is a part of doing business in the US. This is the same as running a garage without a good mechanic.
      • Someone, somewhere, will start charging for better QOS. Someone, somewhere, will start paying for it. Then someone, somewhere, will offer the same thing at a reduced price to get the business. Eventually, someone will offer high QOS at the standard rate as a competitive advantage for using their service.

        In the end, it balances back out...

    • Re:Small question: (Score:3, Informative)

      by jurgen ( 14843 )
      Yes, we are. And what's more... we are paying for these pipes in order to get to Google and Yahoo and Vonage, and without those we'd have zero reason to give our money to AT&T. Ok, Google, etc. are standing in for content providers in general... I know that so long as there is internet porn people will be willing to pay for broadband, but that's all content. Also it's not true that the content providers don't pay... they also need Internet connectivity, and as those of us who've tried running commerc

    • Re:Small question: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by mckyj57 ( 116386 )
      In a November Business Week story, AT&T Chairman Edward E. Whitacre Jr. complained that Internet content providers were getting a free ride: "They don't have any fiber out there. They don't have any wires. . . . They use my lines for free -- and that's bull," he said. "For a Google or a Yahoo or a Vonage or anybody to expect to use these pipes for free is nuts!''

      Guess what, bud -- you don't have any content. So you are even.
    • Perhaps I'm missing the point here, but aren't the end users paying for these pipes?

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

  • Eminent Domain (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Billosaur ( 927319 ) * <<wgrother> <at> <optonline.net>> on Monday January 23, 2006 @11:54AM (#14539489) Journal

    From The Washington Post: The Republican-led Congress is struggling with the issue. On one hand, it has taken a deregulatory approach to the Internet, but on the other, it can't ignore the concerns of Google, Yahoo and eBay, some of the most successful companies of the last 10 years. These companies alone have built up businesses worth hundreds of billions of dollars on an unfettered Internet. Moreover, unfettered Internet access has come to be seen by Americans in general as not just a privilege or a product, but a right akin to free speech and free association.

    It comes down to who you think is more important: companies like AT&T, BellSouth, etc. that provide a connection to the Internet, or Google, Yahoo, etc. that provide the content that cause people to want to have an Internet connection in the first place.

    Personally, I think this is sour grapes by the telecoms, because they didn't think to invest in the content side of things. Let's face it, one share of Google's stock is worth one share of each of theirs combined and then some.

    If I'm Congress, I threaten to nationalize the Internet, specifically its infrastructure and connectivity. Tell them the Federal Government now owns the trunks and fiber and they can bid on a contract for maintenance of the whole thing. Thorw some billions their way as "compensation." They'll change their tune in a hurry lest the lose their steady income.

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

      Now given that the telcos are local monopolies, threatening breakup or nationalization would be great leverage to get these bastards back in line. It just isn't going to happen until at least after the midterm Congressional elections, and that's presuming more Democrats are elected!
      • Yeah, like a Republican Congress under the Bush Administration would even [i]threaten[/i] to nationalize [i]anything[/i].

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

        Nitpicks aside, what makes you think that Democrats are any more likely than Republicans to nationalize anything? They're two sides of the same coin.
        • Both points are good ones. I maintain a habit of using bbcode on boards and HTML tags on Slashdot, but they sometimes get mixed up. And Slashdot doesn't have editing functionality.

    • Re:Eminent Domain (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Glock27 ( 446276 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @12:10PM (#14539653)
      It comes down to who you think is more important: companies like AT&T, BellSouth, etc. that provide a connection to the Internet, or Google, Yahoo, etc. that provide the content that cause people to want to have an Internet connection in the first place.

      Personally, I think this is sour grapes by the telecoms, because they didn't think to invest in the content side of things. Let's face it, one share of Google's stock is worth one share of each of theirs combined and then some.

      It's not "sour grapes". It's "rampant greed". The telecoms are already (or should be if they're competent) turning a profit on the ISP side of things. They get a shiny new income stream of $40-$80 per house that signs up for DSL. That isn't peanuts, that probably averages $600 a year with a target audience of around 100 million households. That's right, if a company managed to sign up 10% of US households, it'd have around a $6 billion annual income stream.

      The greedy jerks (who probably received fat government subsidies to install the infrastructure in the first place) simply see an opportunity to charge on both ends of the deal. They don't care if they wreck the Internet in the process.

      This needs to be fought.

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

        All such a statement communicates is that the writer isn't knowledgale enough to write about the statement at hand. It implies he thinks there are some companies who are not greedy--a delerious fantasy.
        • Criticizing a company for being greedy is like criticizing an iceberg for being cold. I'm sure I am not the only person who stops reading a comment when the writer makes such a pointless statement.

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

          I also used the term "ramp

    • "I'm Congress, I threaten to nationalize the Internet, specifically its infrastructure and connectivity. Tell them the Federal Government now owns the trunks and fiber and they can bid on a contract for maintenance of the whole thing. Thorw some billions their way as "compensation." They'll change their tune in a hurry lest the lose their steady income."

      That sounds... Terrible.
      What people don't really get is that Bell South really doesn't care about the Google search site or Yahoo search. They care about GT

    • Re:Eminent Domain (Score:2, Insightful)

      by ranton ( 36917 )
      I think it is funny that on Slashdot the government can do whatever it wants as long as it only hurts big companies. If it hurts small companies or the average person, then it is an outrage. But if a Telco or Microsoft or Amazon is hurt by unfair legislation or overabundant governmental control, it is okay or even welcomed.

      • Re:Eminent Domain (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Billosaur ( 927319 ) *

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

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

  • Public Utility? (Score:2, Insightful)

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

  • Next: exploit their loss of common carrier status (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Rude Turnip ( 49495 ) <valuation.gmail@com> on Monday January 23, 2006 @11:56AM (#14539506)
    I have already paid for an IP address at a given speed. Anything that screws around with any of my third party dealings (ie Google, Yahoo, eBay, etc.) is theft of service, IMO.

    If something like this goes through, these greedy bastards should lose their common carrier status since they are controlling the types of traffic going through their networks. I, for one, welcome the combined forces of the RIAA, MPAA, FBI & DHS permanently shutting down any ISP that slips up even one bit and allows something illegal to go through their system.
    • Parent is exactly right. The ISP's can't be responsible for only part of their traffic (ie ensuring speedy Google delivery). If they go down this path, ALL traffic is their responsibility. It's nuts that they would even get close to this issue. Part of me wants them to succeed just for the sick legal (read: civil litigation) ramifications to kick in.
      • I disagree with some points there. Upcoming IPv6 priority headers are part of the spec and should be honoured. This means if a packet comes through with a high priority header it should be given that priority. This doesn't take common carrier status, it's simply following the spec and the switches passively obey the headers.

        However, explicitly analysing packets looking for "google.com" and then setting them to higher priority, or looking for "generickiddiepornsite.com" and blocking them, *does* strip them o
        • People keep talking about common carrier status, but as far as I understand it ISPs are designated as "information services," not common carriers, and are therefore subject to Title I of the Communications Act, not Title II. In fact, ISPs fought against being classified as common carriers so that they could pull stunts like this.

  • Death! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Glock27 ( 446276 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @11:56AM (#14539511)
    To the marketroids...

    This is the stupidest idea ever and will receive the warm welcome it deserves.

    It is the same idea as making TVs that receive certain stations better than others. "What do you think dear, should we get a Sony?" "No, let's get a Toshiba, I want CBS to come in clear and last year Sony made that deal with MSNBC..."

    Brilliant thinking.

    Capitalism will certainly fix this (non) problem.

  • Comment removed (Score:3)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @11:59AM (#14539539)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Greed is NOT good (Score:2, Insightful)

    by digitaldc ( 879047 )
    Now that more and more money is being made using the internet, Corporate greed is tainting everything from internet search results to the integrity of the internet itself. This was not the original intent of creating the 'Information Superhighway.'

    Sure you can wait for your site to load, but why? Just because tiny fraction of the world's population wants it that way? With a greater income gap in this country and world, this will only lead to the MOST AFFLUENT to be able to afford to have a fast, reli

  • You want more money? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by AviLazar ( 741826 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @12:01PM (#14539555) Journal
    Meanwhile, on the other side, companies like AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth are lobbying just as hard, saying that they need to find new ways to pay for the expense of building faster, better communication networks. And, they add, because these new networks will compete with those belonging to Comcast, Time Warner and oth er cable companies -- which currently have about

    Here is a suggestion - offer me the same speeds U/D'l that comcast offers, at the same convenience (no I do not want to have to log-on, I want to play and play). Offer this at a cheaper price, or offer faster speeds at the same price. Offer me better service. Do these things and you will have my business - do it not, and go fuck yourselves! I use comcast, yea I pay more, but you know what - i get 3 times the speed of verizon DSL - and for a programmer/web designer that is important.

    And then, with your lack of service, you dare complain you are losing out? And you think you have the right to charge the content providers? They are not the ones requesting to send their information over the net, I am going to them requesting the information...I paid already, i shouldn't have to pay again - and yes I will have to pay again as Yahoo decides to charge me for email.
    • I use comcast, yea I pay more, but you know what - i get 3 times the speed of verizon DSL
      Cable's a lot more hit-or-miss than DSL. Good cable, like my parents have and I had under MediaOne, is noticably faster than DSL. Bad cable isn't.
      • Cable's a lot more hit-or-miss than DSL. Good cable, like my parents have and I had under MediaOne, is noticably faster than DSL. Bad cable isn't

        I have always had comcast, but lived in different areas (Center city philly, west philadelphia, west chester, springfield, and drexel hill) the cable was always fast...maybe it is because it all belongs to comcast (a monopoly of itself) but definitly better then DSL...worth it for me to pay the extra bucks...especially since I do not keep a landline anyhow (i h
    • Agreed. Is VoIP eating your lunch? Maybe you need to start throwing in all those features you (the telco) used to charge for. Caller-ID? free. Call Forwarding? free. Statewide area calling? free. It is called competition for a reason. Learn the game telcos. Unfortunately, it seems the game they are learning is to lobby congress for regulation that suits them.

  • Scary (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Quixote ( 154172 ) * on Monday January 23, 2006 @12:01PM (#14539556) Homepage Journal
    I don't know what is more scary: the fact that these companies are thinking along these lines, or the fact that our representatives in Congress are so clueless that they haven't done anything about it. I mean, this is a no-brainer. Any sane person would tell the Telecomms to fuck off.

  • Selling it on the Hill (Score:5, Informative)

    by HangingChad ( 677530 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @12:04PM (#14539593) Homepage
    Here's how Bellsouth is trying to push their idea on the Hill:

    http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10912575/

    By having one of the largest lobbying efforts of any company around. So, start the PR offensive right before your coporate wine-swilling legislators step up to defend those poor, down-trodden ISP's carrying the load for those freeloading media companies.

    Maybe this will be another another opportunity for Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), the great defender of the common man (if that common man happens to be a Fortune 100 company needing sweetheart legislation) to rush to the defense of his constituents.

    http://www.opensecrets.org/payback/issue.asp?iss ueid=BA3&congno=109

    That's basically the same approach RIAA took. Seems to be becoming the industry model. Heavy lobbying, PR push, profit!!!

  • Big Players Lose (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Saeed al-Sahaf ( 665390 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @12:09PM (#14539641) Homepage
    you may one day discover that Yahoo suddenly responds much faster to your inquiries, overriding your affinity for Google.

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

    • I'm more worried about the little players among content providers. The big guys will get by even if they have to negotiate agreements with the communications providers, but random websites run by individuals or small groups or companies will disappear in an environment that requires everyone to pay ISPs for carrying their content (or carrying it at a speed and quality that users will tolerate). That could effectively eliminate all Internet content not sponsored by large corporations.
  • The TCP/IP suite was designed to provide multiple routes to a given destination, to allow network viability in case of disaster (think nuclear attack). It's supposed to be a mesh, not a tree.

    The way it should work is for everyone to have multiple network connections. I should peer with my neighbors, so that his DSL connection and my cable connection share bandwidth over our wireless gateways, or perhaps just falling over when one of the two is down. If he quits paying his DSL bill and or otherwise starts
  • AT&T Chairman Edward E. Whitacre Jr. complained that Internet content providers were getting a free ride: "They don't have any fiber out there. They don't have any wires. . . . They use my lines for free -- and that's bull," he said. "For a Google or a Yahoo or a Vonage or anybody to expect to use these pipes for free is nuts!''

    Comments like the one above give insight to the arrogance of executives at monopolist corporations. It seems as though he assumes that the 100 million subscribers are a give
  • Other AT&amp;T executives

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

  • Countermeasures to 2-teir (Score:4, Insightful)

    by G4from128k ( 686170 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @12:34PM (#14539895)
    I can see several countermeasures to this development. The key is that the site owner can tell which ISP is stifling the traffic or extorting extra speed payments and change elements of their site to reflect that ISP's unpleasant behavior. For any traffic coming from a Bell South or other 2-tier "badISP" customer:
    1. Publish BadISP's tech support numbers: "If you are having trouble with this site call 1-800-BadISP" -- at about $5-$10 per call, the telco would soon see the folly of its ways.
    2. Publicize BadISPs performance issues: "This site optimized for BadISP competitors" and provide links to non-2-tier competitors.
    3. Post higher prices for BadISP customers: iTunes for $1.09 per song to BadISP customers to pay for "faster" service.

    Creating a 2-tier internet is hardly anonymous and site owner can easily inform end-users of misbehavior.

  • Middle Ages of the Internet (Score:3, Insightful)

    by the eric conspiracy ( 20178 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @12:36PM (#14539916)
    This reminds me of stories from the middle ages when local robber barons set up their own tolls on local roads as sort of a protection racket. The ultimate solution was to have government take over and run the roads. I wonder if that is where this will lead.

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

      If you live in an area with multiple service providers, this will be a non-issue. Some providers will realize they can make more money using an all-you-can eat billing system and high quality service; speakeasy does this, as do several of the smaller cable companies.
  • AFAIK, in most european countries, telcos are just DSL providers, that is they provide an ADSL line to your ISP through their DSLAM, just like in the old dial-up days.

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

    In the Netherlands it goes so far that ISP XS4All gives you different packages,

  • Their real target is VOIP (Score:3, Informative)

    by Maclir ( 33773 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @12:42PM (#14539983) Journal
    The cash cow for telcos is not being an ISP. The cash cow is long distance phone charges. And given that "long distance" can be as close as 10 miles....

    But VOIP will kill that cow stone dead. And the telcos want to make sure that won't happen.
  • Nothing much new here it's typical telco thinking. The're used to running large and hugely complex networks (e.g. GSM) with tightly controlled and metered access.

    If operators had designed the Internet then searching would be a network function controlled by the them and the concept of multiple search engines would seem strange. But then so woulld using the Internet as the terrifying usage charges would have stalled it way back. Adding a service to the network would take a committee of committees several yea

  • Who are these people and can we kill them? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by namespan ( 225296 ) <namespan.elitemail@org> on Monday January 23, 2006 @01:17PM (#14540454) Journal
    Seriously. These guys are basically the same level of morality and worth to society as Spammers -- looking for an easy way to make an extra buck at the expense of the total experience.

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

  • What exactly are we talking about?

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

  • RICO Laws (Score:4, Interesting)

    by TwP ( 149780 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @02:23PM (#14541224) Homepage
    How is this not racketeering?

    Telco: Have we got a deal for!
    WebSite: Let's hear it.
    Telco: If you pay us $X per month, we won't limit our customers access to your website.
    WebSite: <sarcasm>Wow! That sounds like a great deal</sarcasm>

    Now, imagine this with the mafia and a Small Business Owner (SBO)

    Mafia: Have we got a deal for you!
    SBO: Let's here it.
    Mafia: If you pay us $X per month, we won't break your customer's knees with a baseball bat.
    SBO: <sarcasm>Wow! That sounds like a great deal</sarcasm>

    Whoosh. SMACK! (knees crack) AAAaaauughhh!

    Anywho, that's just my simplified version of reality, but it does make sense. Telcos and the cable companies dipped their toes into blocking ports (TCP-25 anyone?) in the name of preventing spam. They're already performing traffic shaping so they can make more money on "business" accounts (more bandwithd for more money). I guess they feel they can now work this same scenario from the other end since they have met so little resistance in the two previous cases.

    Have we dug our own grave with this one by not pipping up earlier? Is silence in the previous cases the same as conset. The telcos and cable companies seem to think so.

  • Been there done that (Score:2, Insightful)

    by rickb928 ( 945187 )
    Haven't we done this before? Wasn't it called AOL?

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

    Cause it ain't.

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

    BS.net trims down google's bandwidth.

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

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

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

Slashdot Top Deals

Arithmetic is being able to count up to twenty without taking off your shoes. -- Mickey Mouse

Close