BellSouth Wants to Rig the Internet 559
PlayfullyClever writes "A senior telecommunications executive at BellSouth, said yesterday that Internet service providers should be allowed to strike deals to give certain Web sites or services priority in reaching computer users, a controversial system that would significantly change how the Internet operates. Some say Small Firms Could Be Shut Out of Market Championed by BellSouth Officer. William L. Smith, chief technology officer for Atlanta-based BellSouth Corp., told reporters and analysts that an Internet service provider such as his firm should be able, for example, to charge Yahoo Inc. for the opportunity to have its search site load faster than that of Google Inc." Next up, well dressed men go door to door collecting their monthly "protection money". 'It sure would be tragic if your users started getting 1500ms ping times, wouldn't it mister dot com?'
They just never quit (Score:5, Interesting)
Of all the low-down dirty extortionist ideas ever hatched. No one's stopping him from using QoS routing right now but what he's proposing is pure opportunistic greed. I suppose it doesn't matter to him--he makes enough money that he can afford to throw away an extra $200/mo. should policies like this ever become commonplace. As for the masses: Let them eat cake!
Re:They just never quit (Score:3, Funny)
Re:They just never quit (Score:5, Insightful)
But the SEC.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:They just never quit (Score:5, Interesting)
I'll resist the temptation to point out the difference between morals and ethics. (See the movie "Election" starring Matthew Broderick and Reese Witherspoon for an example.)
Anyway, the real point here is that the SEC really has nothing to do with policing the morals and ethics of a company. It is reponsible for protecting stock-market investors from unscrupulous companies who try to deceive the stockholders, or who try to manipulate the marketplace for the benefit of insider traders.
As far as the morality, ethics or (most relevant) the legality of the tarrifs that a communication company charges and their reasons for doing so, I think that falls within the bailiwick of the FCC.
Re:They just never quit (Score:4, Interesting)
I totally agree and I'd go a step further, I wonder if it breaches parts of the Richo Act. It definately reeks of mob extortion. It's sad that most big businesses reactions to something new is how can we corrupt it to make a buck. Another one got quietly passed that crippled organic food standards so big business can make money off this lucritive market. I remember when it first got big the top suppliers asked exactly how much pesticide can they use and still call it organic. Well the government finally gave them an answer. They didn't totally cut the heart out but they have left the term organic basically meaningless. Little things like antibiotics and artificial feed can be used on calves so long as they are fed organic before they are butchered. Why it's crime is people are paying a premium for organic foods. The true organic farmers won't be able to compete head to head with the ones cheating. A similar thing will happen here in that people won't realize that the smaller suppliers are being squeezed out. It's yet another sign the wild west days of the internet are coming to a close and it'll wind up eventually another corrupt tool of big business. Enough of the good will remain so most people won't complain but in 20 years the net as it's known today won't exist. It's already more about advertising and sales than content. Spam blew past regular e-mail a while ago and that doesn't include all the advertising. I always say if you want to kill spam and flashing pop up ads never buy what they are selling. If everyone does that the ads will fail and they will disappear. It's the 1% dumb enough to buy from them that keeps the rest of us in misery.
Re:They just never quit (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps, but then again I wish Bellsouth were more competent with their basic telephone service before they start mucking about with something as complex as this.
Let's not forget that the telcos haven't exactly been leading the charge on the technology fronts for quite some time. In fact, about the only time I hear of any "innovative" ideas from a telco, it usually involves a) discovering creative new ways to over-inflate a basic service bill, or b) screwing over customers that are early adopters of a technology the telcos happen to hate.
Re:They just never quit (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:They just never quit (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:They just never quit (Score:3, Interesting)
The focus on profit means that you can't trust anybody who is publically traded- and the grand majority of the privately owned companies aren't that much better. The only way to fix that is to make corporations significantly less focused on profit- perhaps by only awarding articles of incorporation to businesses that have a non-profit mission statement, since the others really don't deserve governmental support.
Re:They just never quit (Score:3, Informative)
The focus on profit itself- without that, a business becomes ethical, but it also stops growing, and it's competitors that are less ethical grab market share.
Isn't there some business that actualy gets a product to someone at a reasonable value without doing somethign evil/unethical?
Absolutely- I can think of many examples. But none of these are actually *successfull* businesses- they don't grow and they stay small, living off nich
Don't be evil on consecutive days (Score:3, Insightful)
Try this:
A Most business' main goal is to maximize profit for its shareholders, [snip]
I think it is possible for profit to be the priority, and yet have ethics inform ones path to profits. If your code of business was taken to the extreme, then we'd see Steve Balmer literarily put hits on Larry Page and Sergey Brin. Think Moscow just after the dissolution of the Soviet Union.
If a publicly held company states their c
Re:They just never quit (Score:5, Insightful)
Careful there. You might find yourself confused with the kettle, pot.
A Business' sole goal is to maximize profit for its shareholders, and nothing else.
False.
The goal that a business must keep as a top-level goal is to maximize shareholder value. This is not the same as "this quarter's profit" or even "profit" over any time frame (though they eventually become related).
Further, many companies interpret "shareholder value" as stock value over the long-term, which is often at odds with actions that would increase stock value in the short-term.
As a conclusive counter-example, check out Johnson & Johnson's credo [jnj.com]. Shareholder value is fourth on that list and it's been below other goals for the past 60 years.
Regards,
Ross
Re:They just never quit (Score:3, Insightful)
And yet, when it comes to cleaning up their mess in India (they bought Union Carbide), they certainly have NOT lived by that credo. In fact, quite the opposite- they managed that crises specifically to minimize shareholder cost.
Re:They just never quit (Score:5, Insightful)
Typical thought process for high-end executives who are used to bullying and paying through the nose to get what they want NOW.
Re:They just never quit (Score:5, Insightful)
No, but for an extra $500 we won't make you wait an extra half hour to deplane....
Re:They just never quit (Score:5, Funny)
Re:They just never quit (Score:5, Funny)
"Attention please, this is your captain speaking. We're going to be delayed as there is heavy traffic at our destination airport and it will take another half hour for us to get permission to land. First class customers, please proceed to the skydiving hatch; you will be landing by parachute in 5 minutes. Please remember that you are allowed to use cell phones during the descent, but be careful not to drop them when your chute deploys. Thank you."
Re:They just never quit (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:They just never quit (Score:3, Insightful)
Or this is similar to giving large media corps an advantage over P2P (and other independant) traffic. Hollywood will probably love BellSouth for this.
Someone should spell it out:
If a server has paid for a certain upstream bandwidth, then end-user ISPs need to ferry that data as qu
Re:They just never quit (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:They just never quit (Score:5, Interesting)
The telcos have a long and storied history of making money hand over fist, with no competition, in the telephone subscriber realm, so this is just another desperate attempt at doing something before that money trough is removed (it's rapidly disappearing). In a free market it should be the case that subscribers can say "FU!" this this man, going with competitors, but unfortunately there isn't enough competition in most areas yet (so you get the casual collusion where they all mirror the same restrictive policies). Maybe WiMax will change the landscape a bit.
Re:They just never quit (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:They just never quit (Score:2)
so this is just another desperate attempt at doing something before that money trough is removed (it's rapidly disappearing)
Hey, don't blame the whole industry for the actions of one dumbass PHB. I happen to have a lot of friends working for various telcos that are doubtless rolling their eyes at this bullshit.
Maybe WiMax will change the landscape a bit.
That's a nice thought -- but I'm afraid that at one point your WiMax is going to need an uplink to the internet :(
Re:They just never quit (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not blaming an industry, but it is invariably an industry that is subsidized by voice subscribers. A few of the Bells have credibly supplanted that with a good wireless cash flow, but for most there are some scary times ahead (as most have shown a tremendous inability to operate in any other market successfully).
Well any business that is branching off into new endeavors is going to be subsidized by existing customers. I can't speak for Bell South (although, historically, they were considered to have the best customer service of the Baby Bells -- WTF happened???) but in my area Verizon seems to be doing very well at branching off into non-voice endeavors. It's more impressive in my area where they barely advertise their DSL product (other then fliers with your bill) -- Roadrunner has a friggen commercial in every single commercial break.
I have a telco background so I'm understandably biased when it comes to defending them -- but no matter how much people hate the phone company I wish they would stop rooting for it's downfall. Do you really think it would be any better to have the cable company completely control your internet/voice/TV? Voice I suppose you could replace with a cell phone and TV with a dish (sucks for local channels though) -- but you'd be hosed on the internet.
I can't wait for FIOS to come to my town. It will be very interesting to see how the cable company holds up when the telcos have the ability to go after the people subsidizing their internet and voice ventures (the TV viewers).
Hopefully the consumer will win.
Re:They just never quit (Score:4, Interesting)
I worked at a telco as well, and left on good terms. Indeed, my post was simply an observation on the state of telcos (and what inspires things like this PHBs ridiculous suggestion) - I'm not rooting for anything (apart from good competition).
No, you didn't seem to be :) That was just a statement meant for general consumption.
I want to see good and fair competition. I've heard of various townships and cities blocking Verizon from moving forward with FiOS TV service because they want to force them to get a franchise agreement like the cable companies have.
That's all well and good until you realize that the cable companies didn't need to get franchise agreements before they started pushing voice down their pipe and selling their VoIP product as a "replacement" for the "hassles" of POTS service.
So how about a level playing field? I would purpose one citywide franchising agreement for all providers of telecommunications and entertainment services. I wouldn't want to see the franchise agreements disposed of entirely (they do give the people -- through their elected officials -- a last resort if they are being screwed by a monopoly) but they should be applied fairly.
Re:The only way to level the playing field (Score:3, Interesting)
The person who owns the lines can't sell directly to the consumer, however anyone else can act as an intermediary.
That's a good theory on paper -- but they tried something similar with utilities and it has been a miserable failure in my humble opinion.
In NYS when they deregulated the electric industry they forced all of the utilities to sell off their generators and to become "distributors" of electricity. The net result you ask? All of the power plants were bought up by out of state interests and now
Re:They just never quit (Score:4, Informative)
As a BellSouth "customer", Saying that BellSouth has the best customer service of the Baby Bells isn't much of a complement. Thank god for cable internet, or we would still be waiting for DSL.
*Shrug* YMMV. Personally, I've never had a problem with Verizon or any of it's predecessors. The biggest problem with the telco customer service department is that the CSRs don't usually know what the repair people are doing.
With Time Warner I had an interference problem that was killing Roadrunner. The interference would come and go -- bad enough that channels 2 and 3 showed it -- and they could never bother to dispatch anybody when it was actually ongoing. They tried any number of things to fix my line -- ran a new drop off the street -- temporally removed the traps on my line (then forgot to reconnect them -- I have 80 channels and pay for 6 -- suckers), put signal suppressors on my cable modem, etc, etc. They could never nail down the problem. At one point they tried to blame it on my TiVo and suggested I get their DVR product instead!
To this day I think the problem was probably something as simple and mundane as a bad TV or VCR in a neighbors house that was leaking RF onto the cable lines. Perhaps if they bothered to dispatch somebody with haste they could track this down. In any case I'm not very fond of a technology that can neutralized by "interference" that can't be tracked down. At least with POTS and DSL I have my own dedicated pair of wires and don't need to worry about what's going on in my neighbors house.
Re:They just never quit (Score:5, Insightful)
So, my last roommate moved out. The phone was in his name. BellSouth (BS) wants $40 to get it in my name. So I say fine, disconnect it, I'm going to VoIP. VoIP doesn't work well with the cable internet due to latency issues. BS is running ad campaigns here about $25/mo. DSL service. So I call them from work to order it. The Customer Rep. wants to know the phone #. I say I don't have one. I go round and round about the advertisement. I cannot get DSL without first getting POTS. I don't want POTS. Customer Rep: doesn't compute, must have POTS. The house is wired, it is within DSL range, but BS will not hook up DSL without POTS. The rep says that I can get POTS from another provider, and then get DSL. All other POTS providers cost more. Solution: Landlord, who lives below me, is willing to let me get my DLS thru her. She pays for POTS, I pay for DSL and share with her.
My main compaint is that BS runs deceptive ads (there is fine print, but I cannot read it quickly enough) and doesn't spell out in clear language to the customer reps that the customer cannot get DSL without POTS.
I believe that in Georgia, you can get "naked" DSL due to a state law that forces BS to unbundle. They are headquarted in Georgia. Don't they understand that what customers want in Georgia might be the same thing that customers in Alabama might also want? Do I have to get a politician to pass a law for me to get unbundled DSL?
The short answer: the cable company and the phone companies both suck when it comes to internet service. They both have big cash cows that are not directly related to internet service other than the fact that they have infrastructure to your house which can be used to provide broadband.
Re:They just never quit (Score:5, Insightful)
This story reminds me of a funny dispute between CNN and the Amsterdam cable TV company:
Cable co. "We will start charging you for providing access to your viewers"
- CNN: "Well, actually you should really pay us, for providing content for your cable network"
Cable co: "Pay or we will remove CNN from our lineup"
- CNN: "Fine, we'll take our content elsewhere"
The cable TV model worked quite well: customers pay the cable company for physical access to various stations. These stations provide content for free, supported by ads, or at an extra charge to the customers. In this case, some idiot exec got greedy and tried to charge both sides of the network. Fortunately, neither side wasn't having any of that. CNN didn't play ball, and customers didn't exactly relish the idea of paying twice for content, and threatened to buy satellite dishes and ditch cable. After a few weeks, CNN was put back onto the network, for free.
This case is much the same. Over here, we have a choice of backbone networks and ISPs re-selling access to those backbones. Any ISP trying to pull a stunt like this will see their customers melt away. After all, people have gotten used to the idea of flat rate Internet access, in facr that's what ISPs used to lure people over to ADSL.
However, in cases were there is a monopoly of one or a few companies working together, they can and will get away with it.
Re:They just never quit (Score:2)
Of all the low-down dirty extortionist ideas ever hatched.
I bet he'd stop thinking it was such a great idea the minute he realizes that it would also allow Verizon/Quest/other LECs to "prioritize" his marketing calls to Google and Yahoo into oblivion. Hey, it's not their fault that BellSouth didn't ante up for the "prioritized" voice package.
Hell, I'm the biggest defender of the traditional POTS/Baby Bells companies around these parts -- and I think this is complete bullshit!
Re:They just never quit (Score:3, Interesting)
And this is the problem with using analogies. You can chose which comparisons to make that make your point look good. I don't like it when people start using analogies, I don't see how one situation or circumstance can be used to explain a completely different situation or circumstance. Does anyone else feel me?
It's like when....
Just kidding
Re:They just never quit (Score:2, Insightful)
Don't complain to Congress, the SEC, the CUB, the UN. Just don't use the service.
If Bell is your only provider, you're to blame. Many States and cities made it a mess to compete, and the voters wanted it that way.
Nothing to see here. With competition, these things don't matter.
Re:They just never quit (Score:3, Funny)
Would this not void common carrier status? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Would this not void common carrier status? (Score:2, Interesting)
I alwasy thought the people who believed that "upper class, secret society" shit were crazy, but this about seals the deal. Basically they want to eliminate freedom of speech with just a different label. That favorite blog of yours? Oh,
It doesn't matter (Score:2)
Re:Would this not void common carrier status? (Score:2)
Quick, someone patent the "lovely bit". Just like the evil bit but reserved for sponsored traffic.
Might be moot (Score:2)
I.e. if I build a bridge and allow anyone who has a train to cross it for a nominal fee, but I also own a train that I use to cross it, does the common carrier status apply to the train too, the bridge, or neither?
Control-V, Control-C, *click* (Score:4, Interesting)
-everphilski-
Re:Control-V, Control-C, *click* (Score:2)
This would probably violate Article 81 of the EU (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:This would probably violate Article 81 of the E (Score:2)
Capitalization.... I Just Can't Take It Any More! (Score:2, Funny)
That's just great. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:That's just great. (Score:2)
Too late [microsoft.com]
You have *got* to be kidding (Score:4, Funny)
They will fail (Score:5, Funny)
Sure, no problem (Score:3, Interesting)
As long as ISPs get penalized for every piece of SPAM they allow to float around, for every SPAMmer they allow to operate unhindered using their services, for every shady business or phishing site they allow to run unabated, and when Satan can skate on his swimming pool.
Ip traffic control (Score:5, Informative)
It appears that the Internet remains a magnicifently untameable beast still, despite pointy headed attempts like this to control it.
Except.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Dear Bell south you are looking a lot like Sony and SCO. Not a good thing.
Watch how fast (Score:2)
Go ahead, be liable for it (Score:5, Insightful)
As soon as they do this, then they should become legally responsible for all content that crosses their network.
Either ISPs are passive conduits, or they are not. If they can easily differentiate between packets from different sources, and filter those packets for different handling procedures, then they can take responsibility for not allowing 'illegal' packets on their network.
techie newbs. (Score:2)
On another note, historically, every time one of the bell's gets too big for their britches they get broken up... If any of you hold th
Give up all common-carrier status and maybe (Score:2, Interesting)
Otherwise, no.
Rotten companies lose eventually... (Score:5, Interesting)
This would give Yahoo the leverage to say to BellSouth: if you want to have ANY major search engine/portal in your network, better provide unrestricted access to our domain.
Net result: Google owns their own 'Net, Yahoo pwns BellSouth.
Re:Rotten companies lose eventually... (Score:4, Insightful)
I mean all the time our cable company and phone company take shots at each other in their TV ads. If a provider is dumb enough to do this, the rest will just eat them alive.
Re:Rotten companies lose eventually... (Score:3, Interesting)
Bellsouth does this, and Cox Communications and Time Warner Cable, and all the other cable providers use their bully pulpit control of the tv to rake BellSouth over the coals, while at the same time promoting their cable/internet/voip bundles.
This is one of those places where Bellsouth CANNOT afford to be seen as inferior to the cable providers. I use Bellsouth myself (cheap static IP), but I've got zero customer loyalty, and if Bellsouth does anything APPROACHING this I'll drop the
This Internet (Score:4, Funny)
Customers already extra (Score:2)
Re:Customers already extra (Score:2)
If consumers had a choice (Score:2, Insightful)
Let's not be too worried.. (Score:5, Insightful)
The only real danger is the growing monopolization of Internet access, through cable and DSL, but yet we watch as wifi-based Internet access spreads and their market crumbles beneith their feet.
More fuel on the fire, BellSouth, it'll only help speed your own destruction.
Re:Let's not be too worried.. (Score:2)
Re:Let's not be too worried.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Competition (Score:2)
For a long time I completely loathed cable companies, because the only choice consumers had was to have cable or not to have TV at all. This enabled cable companies to treat their customers like trash and laugh at the consumers. The advent of satellite TV dramatically changed how cable companies treat their cust
My in-depth analysis and opinion (Score:2)
Out of curiosity (Score:2)
More importantly, are there any laws or government bodies that we can bring into effect on our side to make sure this kind of crap never happens?
Too many factors (Score:3, Interesting)
an Internet service provider such as his firm should be able, for example, to charge Yahoo Inc. for the opportunity to have its search site load faster than that of Google Inc.
I assume they would want to use some form of QoS to control traffic. However there would be a few problems that would arise from this. Let's say for instance Yahoo uses a seperate backbone from Google. Would this ISP then force Google traffic to slowdown? Or how about if Yahoo has more hops than Google? There are so many factors that affect Internet traffic that for an ISP to fully control them would be quite difficult. On most high-bandwidth ISPs where links hardly get clogged, one would certainly have to force low priority sites to slowdown.
Like this is going to work (Score:2)
i'm not sure i get the problem (Score:2)
Maybe... (Score:2)
Then I put a bit more thought in on it. I would be okay with this if it was constantly monitored and I could be absolutely sure that none of the "non-accelerated" site's performance was degraded. Hypothetical: if we get ~100ms pings from both Google and Yahoo now, then Yahoo buys the 'optimization' and Yahoo's ping drops to ~80ms and Google's stays at ~100ms, then I'm fine with this. But if Google's pings start suffering, to say ~110ms, then they are degrading their
Idiot doesn't even know who his customer is (Score:5, Insightful)
This is exactly what happens when governments grant monopolies. BellSouth has been taking their customers for granted since they spun away from the AT&T motnership, which also took us for granted. After all, where can we really go? Like most regions of the US with broadband, we have government monopoly A (BellSouth) or government monopoly B (Cox) and while they can be played off one another just a little, they co-own the Louisiana Public Service Commission that makes the rules and aren't above conspiring together to keep their cost down and the users downtrodden.
The baby bells must be broken again. They can keep the monpoly on the copper or fiber but must NOT be permitted to own or operate any of the higher level protocols or have any business entanglements with anyone who does. I'm serious, we need a seperate company that JUST owns and maintains the physical plant and leases space on a totally non-discrimnatory basis in the CO to as many companies that want to install voice switches, DSLAMS, etc. as can fit into the building.... and have rules so a carrier can even pay to make the building bigger.
Re:Idiot doesn't even know who his customer is (Score:3, Interesting)
> 2. A price that the regulator deems fair.
That only works so long as #2 can't be influenced by the telco, and here in Lousiana USA that ain't ever going to be so. We have the best pols money can buy, have for over a century and probably still will a century from now.
You see, BellSouth already must allow 'equal access' at the same price they charge their bellsouth.net division. But they set that price at insane levels so that bellsouth.net (the s
Monopolosaurus Rex (Score:5, Insightful)
It's obvious that these telcos are jealous of Google and the big bucks connected with it. They want their cut, not by competing to provide better products, but by threatening to make their products worse unless their extortion money is paid. Back in the 1990s, they tried to force extra fees on dialup customers, on ISPs, based on lies about phone switch capacity. They tried selling ISDN from clueless salespeople for ripoff prices after unpredictable and interminable installation delays. Then they screwed up DSL deployment on a bigger scale. All along they succeeded in buying up and regulating out the competition, while everyone said they didn't understand the Internet. Which diverted investment to companies like Google, as well as the smart entrepreneurs. Now that they've consolidated American bandwidth into the bottlenecks that they monopolize, these old dinosaurs are moving in for the kill. If there's not enough competition to let Google and mom/pop choose an equitable Internet like the one we've built these last 10-20 years, we need to snap the neck of their new monopolies with legislation. There's no reason we have to let their loophole victories over past monopoly remedies and market corrections choke off the developments that have happened despite their vile presence in the landscape.
google wireless (Score:2)
So you if you want to know where the first google wireless [slashdot.org] service areas will be, you just have to find high concentrations of Bell-South customers.
Backwards (Score:2)
Fifty-fifty (Score:5, Funny)
hmm (Score:2)
Say they charge the users...you have to tell them at some point in order to charge them (probably after they sign a contract) and you'll have angry users and lawsuits and nonsense -- or people will just sign up with other ISPs who advertise unlimited full speed access to all sites.
So that's a non-starter.
Say they charge the corporations...the users don't have to know, so the corporations with the big bucks may very well pony up the cash, because they'll suff
Soon, To The Highest Bidder... (Score:2)
Vint Cerf/Google's Comments Bellsouth Plan (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.circleid.com/posts/vint_cerf_speaking_
Vint couldn't attend in person since he was recieving the Presidential Medal of Freedom that day for his DARPANET/Internet pioneering efforts.
This link was widely disseminated in the North American IPv6 Task Force and IPv6 Forum where I believe most members strongly support Vint's views.
This is the total opposite of how it should be (Score:3, Insightful)
If the Internet was similar to the real world, all Internet Providers would be paying content producers money for the information the Internet Provider's customers use.
Unfortuately, with the Internet - it is opposite. Say you have a really good site and you gather quite a bit of traffic, unfortunately you pay your Internet provider by the megabytes of traffic your visitors use. A good slashdotting could bankrupt you - all because your providing good information.
If you want to listen to an excellent interview of how the Internet came to be how it is today, Nerd TV's interview with Brester Kahle (Internet Archive Founder) is definately worth a listen.
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/nerdtv/player/?show=0
The boycott would be hilarious (Score:3, Insightful)
If a major ISP ever did this, I don't think it would take long for popular sites to start filtering for their IP space and redirecting to an informative page about the lousy ISP.
Picturing the bedlam in the call center is making me smile.
Naturally (Score:4, Interesting)
The providers don't want to be just the guys that rent the pipes because there's not enough money in it. They'd like to be able to control content and charge for extra services. Sprint's music downloads [technologynews.info] is an example where this is already happening. (You can get highspeed music downlads but only through their vendor lock-in service.)
According to Searls' article the providers have watched companies like ebay and google make fortunes on the Internet using their pipes. They feel left out and want to get in on the action. Expect more of this.
Current dodgy Bellsouth practices (Score:5, Interesting)
Can you say "Akamai?" (Score:5, Informative)
What Mr Smith wants to do is, well, asinine. He wants to allow the data pipes on his network to fill to 100% and then prioritize the traffic based on who pays. This suggests such a flawed understanding of the technology that as the chief technology officer, he should be fired.
See, here's the problem: For a router to make a priority-based switching decision between packets, it has to have more than one packet cached in memory waiting for free space in the outgoing pipe. But, if you havn't started transmitting the first packet by the time the second packet finishes arriving then you've already lost the speed game. Fast service means that you don't hold on to the packets. You send them out the next link as soon as you get them. Any other architecture would result in transmission speeds that are two to three times slower, even for the highest priority packets! Duh!
So if you don't want your network to suck rocks, you still have to keep the utilization below 80%, and if you keep the utilization down then except for rare bursts of traffic the prioritization function will never be used.
As a search engine, why on earth would I buy priority on your network knowing that either A) it almost never gets used or B) your network is piss slow either way? Answer: I wouldn't.
Fire Mr. Smith. He doesn't understand the technology he's charged with overseeing.
I'm all for it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Lets Take Back the Lines (Score:3, Insightful)
It would need to be clear that this is a critical national infrastructure and was critical that it be maintained and upgraded. There would be grants from an appropriate Federal agency to assist with this, much like they assist with highway and other projects today.
This would even the playing field between providers of all types and remove all of the conflicts of interest. Heck, while we are at it, lets take back the power lines too, let the government be responsible for distribution of power and let power companies actually compete on supply and service.
If this is such a good idea... (Score:5, Insightful)
"Hello, Coca-Cola? Yeah, listen, I just wanted you to know that we just cut a new deal with Pepsi, that gives their phone calls priority on our systems. Yeah, it's an exclusive deal and all. Basically my engineers tell me that any call of yours routed through our systems will receive a 10% degredation in signal quality and experience approximately a 3 second delay in connection. I'm sure you understand, just the cost of doing business and all. If you're interested, perhaps I can tell you about our new Super Platinum plan, which would give your calls Level 2 High Priority, ensuring that....hello?"
Let 'em (Score:3, Insightful)
How do they plan on doing this exactly? (Score:3, Informative)
Jerks. Pure corporate jealousy.
it's restraint of trade, a constitutional violatio (Score:3, Informative)
particularly if his little plan interferes with DHS/FBI/m-o-u-s-e plans to get in line first and look over everything else that moves by. that little project never seems to go away, and always seems to have priority over what the moneygrubbers want to do....
Re:please fix your website (Score:5, Funny)
The requested URL was not found.
If you want to buy this page load, mail the $404 in cash in an envelope addressed to
BellSouth Corporation Headquarters
1155 Peachtree St. NE
Suite 404
Atlanta, GA 30309-3610
Re:out of context (Score:5, Informative)
Re:out of context (Score:3, Insightful)
Thats just it, they're not bottlenecking this on the server side. They're threatening content providers by telling them that if they don't pay extra directly to them, then Bell South customers will have to wait longer for their content. You could operate off of 10 OC3s directly from 3 different Tier-1 companies, but if you d
Re:Enough with the strawmen (Score:2)
How would one go about diagnosing deliberate VS unintential lag or connectivity issues?
The mob analogy fits for monopolies (Score:3, Insightful)
Within 100 miles of where I live, there are places where the ONLY high-speed, low-latency, affordable internet option is DSL. ALL DSL must go through the local phone company directly or indirectly.
In other words, the phone company has the "independent" DSL providers by the balls, which means they have you by the balls. If they get abusive a la
Re:Enough with the strawmen (Score:5, Interesting)
BellSouth proposes an end-run around whatever deals or features your ISP may offer by selling packet priority to the highest bidder. Your ISP will not see any of this money, neither as direct kickbacks or as reduced service costs. Moreover, your ISP will now suck more, because their packets will receive lower priority.
There's a reason Judge Green drew a very firm line between content and carriage -- to prevent precisely this kind of extortionate behavior.
Schwab
Re:Corporatism is the new Fascism (Score:4, Insightful)
Franklin Delano Roosevelt
This is probably the most eloquant justification of antitrust law I have ever seen (despite the fact that I largely detest FDR for his shameless manipulation of the legal system).
But back on topic, this does sound to be shady in a large number of ways. I personally doubt it will fly any better than a pig.
Re:I for one... (Score:5, Insightful)
QoS, priorities and ToS have been known for more then a decade. The fact is, till recently they have been used mostly in third world and beyond where the bandwidth is scarce, fiber is unheard of and you have to use something like this to achieve a competitive edge. I have used it myself as far back as late nighties. Similarly, we had customer facing web based helldesk, customer facing link statistics, customer facing web ordering system for extras and specials etc as far back as late nineties.
None of these were widely used around the civilized world till recently because it was cheaper to invest in more hardware and bandwidth to achieve similar results.
This is no longer the case.
Very few if any new fiber is layed in the ground and the router CPUs/ASICs are finally catching up for the bandwidths used in telco land. Further to this, the players are few and largely evened up so they have no choice, but to look into network intelligence as means of gaining a competitive edge. Some have already rolled it out. Many laughed at the first ones like Level3 which at the time had a rather primitive QoS system with 4 queues and 4 types of traffic. Nobody is laughing any more and network policy devices are the most looked at item in labs trials for all new roll outs.
Our QoS overlords are coming and will here to stay.
And once you have provided a MaBell telcohead with the tool expecting them not to use it is rather silly. From there on it is only a matter of how much do they use it. If they overuse it they risk getting smacked by a threat to lose their common carrier status as well as a few anticompetitive investigations. How do they consider this risk is a different matter.