Executives (BellSouth) Want to Charge for Web Speed

[iconoclastNYC]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/30/AR2005113002109.html

A senior telecommunications executive 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. <...>

"If I go to the airport, I can buy a coach standby ticket or a first-class ticket," Smith said. "In the shipping business, I can get two-day air or six-day ground." <...>

Several big technology firms and public interest groups say that approach would enshrine Internet access providers as online toll booths, favoring certain content and shutting out small companies trying to compete with their offerings.

"Prioritization is just another word for degrading your competitor," said Gigi B. Sohn, president of Public Knowledge, a digital rights advocacy group. "If we want to ruin the Internet, we'll turn it into a cable TV system" that carries programming from only those who pay the cable operators for transmission.

My thoughts:

THIS IS HORRIBLE and everyone who uses the internet must pay attention to this and lobby Congress to turn the Internet into a common carrier so the people who own the pipes can't influence what goes thru them IN ANY WAY.

I know slippery slope arguments are frowned upon but if this goes thru it will open up a whole new world where the Internet is not free and open but rather an amalgam of walled off areas. This will limit the free expression of ideas and stifle innovation. There are already rumblings of big telcos blocking voice over IP (Skype, Vonage, etc) because it competes with their POTS services (Plain Old Telephone)

Telcom companies need to get it thru their head that they exist to provide a PIPE. Thats it. They can charge their customers for access to that pipe. They have no business controlling or manipulating what goes thru that pipe. Meaning...they can't give preference to a company who's willing to pay more. That's monkeying around with the pipe. There must be a hands-off policy.

Any telco that starts doing the thing this guy is talking about needs to be boycotted and any company that enters into any sort of preferential service agreement with said corporation needs to be boycotted. Congress/FCC should make these sorts of arrangements illegal.

[xultar]

1. Censorship

[iconoclastNYC]

2. I'd know to know more about what you think.

I'm not really sure what you mean Censorship.

[xultar]

30. People who can pay to get the message out will people who can't pay

can't get their message out.

Rich assholes will buy up all the prime spots...

[Selatius]

33. Sounds a lot like the corporate news media as well as Congress

This model shouldn't be imported onto the internet because it'll destroy the blogging community as only those backed by wealthy, powerful interests would survive.

[ixion]

3. it won't work under the current IP implementation

it would be a 2nd tier solution, at best, and would probably do more harm to bellsouths user base than it would help, IMO.

[iconoclastNYC]

5. Thanks for that Jargon explosion.

But I think I'll take the word of the Bell South CEO.

He woudln't be issueing this trial balloon if it weren't possible.

And all the need to do is run software on thier routers that slow down requests to "non-premium" destinations.

So I basically think you are wrong.

[ixion]

7. nope, you proved my point:

run software on thier routers that slow down requests to "non-premium" destinations.


That is a 2nd tier solution, happening not as a result of the IP request, but only once that request gets into BellSouth's network.

But hey, you're entitled to your own opinion. :-)

[iconoclastNYC]

13. Its more then an oppion.

Yeah it's going to affect thier customers but if you hadn't noticed there are only about 4 or 5 national ISPs so we're not talking about a small amount of people affected by this. Especially if it becomes standard operating procedure. They'll all start doing it.

So keep up this notion that there is something about IP tech (which 9/10 people don't know anything about) that makes this not possible but you are wrong because you don't understand it or else you are trying to muddy the waters.

[ixion]

17. I understand IP just fine

and I'm just stating my opinion, so I'll thank you to stop telling me how wrong I am when you obviously don't fully understand the technology involved.

[iconoclastNYC]

37. Excuse me?

You don't undestand the proposal. I understand IT quite well I do it for my job.

[merwin]

4. People who own an expensive car can't drive faster than everyone else.

There's a reason they call it a superhighway... because that's how the information flow is meant to operate.

I swear to God, if they do this, I'll drive 1MB/s in the 100MB/s lane!

[NV Whino]

6. SBC already does it.

I pay more for a faster speed. Normal is around $15, I pay $29.

[conflictgirl]

11. I don't think that's the same thing though

I pay more for high-speed cable internet. But it's not the same thing as what they're talking about here - I'm pretty sure they're talking about the web content of what you see being determined by who pays for that "privilege". Web sites could pay to have their site come up more quickly, so sites that couldn't pay that would be at the disadvantage.

I might be understanding this wrong, but I'm pretty sure they're talking about speed of access to certain sites, not internet speed in general.

[iconoclastNYC]

16. Yes you nailed it. N/T.

[NV Whino]

38. Thanks for the clarification.

[Pavulon]

40. Already in Play

If you can buy oc128 lines and host of clustered 32 way risc machines with massive computing power you already habe a speed advantage over the person hosting on go daddy.

[FreakinDJ]

27. Yes but right now it is only packet size

this will allow them to filter / censor the internet

[Alpharetta]

8. Large ISPs are already capable of prioritizing traffic

They can bias the routers to favor certain domains and traffic sources.

The challenge for these execs is coming up with a way for content providers to pay for those priorities. Funny thing is, they've already done that a bit, in the way they price trunks from some server farms. But of course they'd love to price it within an IP protocol, paying for a class-of-service grade.

But really it's wishful thinking. Most likely a pricing scheme would put the US at a competitive disadvantage compared to traffic sources from the rest of the world.

[rateyes]

9. I use a different ISP at home than at work,

but, at work I use bellsouth as both my telcom and ISP, and have control over which company to use, so I will be contancting bellsouth tomorrow and say to them that I object to this concept and if it remains their goal, then I will be switching providers for both my telcom and internet.

If any other bellsouth users out there, I urge you to do the same. If just a few customers threaten, and follow up on the threat if demand isn't met to do away with this idea, it might just wake them up. I WILL be contacting bellsouth tomorrow. Thanks for the heads up.

[Dead_Parrot]

10. At the risk of getting flamed...

...I'd say it makes quite a lot of sense. If you're running a time-critical web site - streaming video, say, or on-line gaming - It would be nice if you could take priority over, to pick a random example, some gimp in mommy's basement drooling over at freakypubic. The problem would only arise is they start deliberately downgrading sites to encourage them to sign up for the speed boost.

Ixion - It would be possible for any large ISP to do this, all they would have to do is split thier internal network gear & comm. lines into high & slow speed networks and play around with the route weighting. It's a bit of a juggling act for capacity, but quite do-able. (Edit: You might need to muck around with DNS entries as well)

As it stands, if I'm trying to watch c-span video (as I was while Murtha was in full flow) and the kid next door is surfing www.bizzarre-and-unnatural-sex-acts-involving-fruit.com*, we get equal slices of the ISP's bandwidth, which to be honest is a bit annoying.

(*Not a real site. Sorry. :))

[iconoclastNYC]

14. This doesn't happen.

99/100 times if you can't get enuf bandwidth to view video it's becasue the server sending you the video has run out of bandwith. The guy next to you has nothing to do with the bandwith you have available unless the ISP doesn't have a big enuf pipe to the Internet.

The issue here is that the telco wants to make more money by letting a competitor screw over a competitor by paying for an unlevel playing field. There shoudln't be any preference for one company or another.

And this is all just a trial baloon. Trust me, this will make far more distasteful practices creep into the way the internet works. It must be resisted and banned by Congress.

[Dead_Parrot]

18. Exactly.

99/100 times if you can't get enuf bandwidth to view video it's becasue the server sending you the video has run out of bandwith.

Allowing one provider to get priority over would solve the problem. If I've then run out of bandwidth to my ISP at home (the other bottleneck) that's between me and my ISP - and if I wanted to go from a 2 to a 4 meg line, I'd expect to pay more.

At the moment, if you want your webserver to get higher bandwidth into the backbone, it normally means switching to a more expensive ISP with higher capacity and/or fewer clients. This proposal would do exactly the same thing, but within one company - no mucking around with new service managers, contracts and unknown helpdesk "features".

[iconoclastNYC]

34. Bull.

This is something completely different. This is not dealing with the bandwith a SERVER has to the internet. This is limiting the speed someone aiming to REACH a server has. It's putting a speed bump in the way.

Your logic is wrong.

[sandnsea]

31. Or not enough server power

People can already choose server speed based on price anyway. There are still T-1's available if you don't want the expense of a server with multiple pipes, etc. I don't know what they're talking about, but it sounds like corporatizing the internet to me, which they've already done pretty successfully anyway.

[NashVegas]

42. Competitive / Anti-Competitive

On the surface, allowing this seems competitive, but only in the sense that providers are competing to see who can come up with the best bribe for the ISP.

From a content standpoint, it's completely non-competitive, and strangles information.

Examples: sites like the New Yorker and Harpers (and likely C-Span, too) that provide in-depth content with limited appeal would wind up having to pay more for their bandwidth than something like a Mattel toys site.

Selling or giving priority bandwidth to the highest bidder goes against everything idea the internet was built on.

[Pavulon]

12. QOS

Already in place. Backbone routers can queue traffic based on all kinds of metrics.

[iconoclastNYC]

15. By service type.

meaning email, web, voice, video, file trading.

not giving one company an unfair advantage because they pony up money to the ISP. that's an entirely different animal which you would have undestood if you had read the article or stoped to think about it.

[Pavulon]

39. OC X

If you buy an oc3 vs an oc12 you get a faster and bigger pipe to the internet.

A company on a cable solution and a company behind a pair of oc 128s have a very different presence to their customers.

This is no different than a company running shit equipment and a company running 32 way high end RISC machines.

This is no different htan a company buying more PBX lines to decrease the probability of a busy signal on a phone call.

By any layer of the osi model exactly. A packet from IBM going to Cisco can be given a higher priority than a packet from ford to a bank.

[merwin]

19. To explain what they are trying to do (some don't seem to quite get it)

To simplify, right now, what you pay for when you get a website is bandwidth from the backbone (main internet pipe) to the hosting provider. Better providers and better hosting plans will get you a higher speed to the backbone. Think of the backbone as an interstate and the route from the backbone to the hosting provider (what you currently pay for when you get a hosting plan) is the exit ramp and side streets. The more a hosting provider pays, the better exit ramp and side streets he gets.

What BellSouth is trying to do is take that interstate and turn probably about 1/3 of it into a special "carpool lane" that you have to pay premium prices for, while the rest of the normal traffic gets stuck in a traffic jam.

How would you feel about a special lane on the freeway that cost $1000/month to drive in, so basically only rich people drove in it. Pisses the hell out of me :-)

So in theory, you could pay premium prices with a hosting provider that guarantees you top speed to the backbone. And even though you paid that hosting provider premium prices, you have to pay BellSouth premium prices AGAIN to get better speeds through the backbone to your specific website.

Basically, it's a move to screw the little guy.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[classics]

21. Already been done and it has FAILED.

Just look at AOL, its exactly the same thing.

Lots of people paying for 'up front' exposure with any access to the real internet buried away under a thick layer of ad revenue.

And it failed. AOL is in serious decline and is doing worse again this quarter.

Executives are so damn stupid.

[Miss Chybil]

22. This is bullshit.

It won't fly.

[cosmicone]

23. This executive is stupid

There is no way the content can be preferentially directed to/from people who pay more unless someone owns all the search engines and DNS servers. There is no provision in today's TCP/IP to do that.

The first class, second class, coach analogy already exists. People who pay more get a higher bandwidth and thus faster service.

Even if Bellsouth were to come up with some way to accomplish a favored site paradigm, it will have to fight with the entire world community to implement it and it is unlikely that the rest of the world will go along considering the reputation of the US as a greedy, selfish, imperialist power at the moment.

[merwin]

24. They can restrict bandwidth on their own lines based on anything...

This doesn't have anything to do with search engines or DNS servers. It basically would look at the IP address that the traffic is going to/from and give it preferential treatment if it's one of the premium IP's, and slow down everybody else.

The first, second, coach analogy that you talked about is regarding the hosting providers. What Bell South is talking about has nothing to do with the hosting providers, and I'm assuming that the hosting providers will be very pissed off about this too.

[iconoclastNYC]

35. Wrong.

They can set up the roadblocks for thier customers and that's exactly what he intend to do. He's not saying lets rewire the internet, he's saying...this is what we'll do on our network

It's a "you want to reach our customers faster than your competitor, well pony up the money"

The way it is now you pay for acess to the Internet and what do you do with that access is up to you. BellSouth wants to put speed bumps in the way on thier network. Meaning if GOOLGE is paying the be the prefered search partner they'll slow down MSN, YAHOO, etc.

Sure it only effects Bell South's costumers but thats millions of people and it sets a nasty precedent.

[AnnieBW]

25. This Guy Is a NUT!

He's pissed off a lot of Internet Telephony developers with his stupid comments. BTW, isn't BellSouth the people that took YEARS to get regular phone service to some small town in Louisiana earlier this year? Talk about a corporation needing to get a clue.

[FreakinDJ]

26. SBC and traffic shapeing already exist

This would make it open season on censorship

[wookie294]

28. This is the biggest issue of our time

I knew Big Media would seek to charge a higher fee to visit obscure websites like many of us have authored. We can defeat this effort by educating everyone in the same way we educated people about Michael Powell's ownership deregulation back in 2003. MoveOn.org needs to get on this TODAY.

[high density]

29. Can anybody say "Enron's bandwidth commodity market?"

Sounds like the same old shit to me and we all know how well that worked out for Enron.

[RoyGBiv]

32. Related Article ...

As the article notes up front, this is a long piece, but I strongly recommend it be read by those who think this simply won't happen even if we do nothing, those who think it is a weird idea out of nowhere or an example of aberrant thinking, or those who find themselves confused about what all is happening. I actually recommend everyone read it because if you're reading this, the events and probable events mentioned in this article affect you.

Saving the Net: How to Keep the Carriers from Flushing the Net Down the Tubes

By Doc Searls

We're hearing tales of two scenarios--one pessimistic, one optimistic--for the future of the Net. If the paranoids are right, the Net's toast. If they're not, it will be because we fought to save it, perhaps in a new way we haven't talked about before. Davids, meet your Goliaths.

...

Are you ready to see the Net privatized from the bottom to the top? Are you ready to see the Net's free and open marketplace sucked into a pit of pipes built and fitted by the phone and cable companies and run according to rules lobbied by the carrier and content industries?

Do you believe a free and open market should be "Your choice of walled garden" or "Your choice of silo"? That's what the big carrier and content companies believe. That's why they're getting ready to fence off the frontiers.

And we're not stopping it.

http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/8673

[iconoclastNYC]

36. Thanks for that link.

It's a great article and it hits the nail on the head about this issue.

[RoyGBiv]

41. No problem ...

I hope others read it as well.

Doc has got the pulse of the industry pegged, imo.

[NashVegas]

43. A Technology Officer With Poor Logic Skills

"If I go to the airport, I can buy a coach standby ticket or a first-class ticket," Smith said. "In the shipping business, I can get two-day air or six-day ground."

Internet USERS - that is, web page viewers, etc., already have this system. Some people use dial-up, some people use broadband.

What Smith is proposing is charging the providers more for the same service and hampering those who won't pay up.

Let's say you operate an airport with two runways with equal capabilities. If Fed-Ex is willing to pay more money than UPS, their privileges won't change, but UPS will now be subject to hold-ups. This, as opposed to simply raising the rates across the board.

This isn't all that different from racketeering. In fact, it's pretty fucking similar to the mob guy demanding protection money.