By Jeff Chester The Nation Wednesday 01 February 2006
The nation's largest telephone and cable companies are crafting an alarming set of strategies that would transform the free, open and nondiscriminatory Internet of today to a privately run and branded service that would charge a fee for virtually everything we do online.
Verizon, Comcast, Bell South and other communications giants are developing strategies that would track and store information on our every move in cyberspace in a vast data-collection and marketing system, the scope of which could rival the National Security Agency. According to white papers now being circulated in the cable, telephone and telecommunications industries, those with the deepest pockets - corporations, special-interest groups and major advertisers - would get preferred treatment. Content from these providers would have first priority on our computer and television screens, while information seen as undesirable, such as peer-to-peer communications, could be relegated to a slow lane or simply shut out.
Under the plans they are considering, all of us - from content providers to individual users - would pay more to surf online, stream videos or even send e-mail. Industry planners are mulling new subscription plans that would further limit the online experience, establishing "platinum," "gold" and "silver" levels of Internet access that would set limits on the number of downloads, media streams or even e-mail messages that could be sent or received.
To make this pay-to-play vision a reality, phone and cable lobbyists are now engaged in a political campaign to further weaken the nation's communications policy laws. They want the federal government to permit them to operate Internet and other digital communications services as private networks, free of policy safeguards or governmental oversight. Indeed, both the Congress and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) are considering proposals that will have far-reaching impact on the Internet's future. Ten years after passage of the ill-advised Telecommunications Act of 1996, telephone and cable companies are using the same political snake oil to convince compromised or clueless lawmakers to subvert the Internet into a turbo-charged digital retail machine.
The telephone industry has been somewhat more candid than the cable industry about ... ... Continued ...
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
That is something to be concerned about. The internet must continue to be a wild free place.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Pish Posh. It's all rubbish. It will never happen. They would all get their buts sued to hell.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
For anyone who understands how the Internet works, what this article says is full of hot air - either from the columnist or the telephone and cable companies. Telephone and Cable lines are simply the tranferers of information and not the source of the information. Basically, they would have to take control of the servers. I doubt that could happen easily if at all.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
The would be sued to heck
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:The telephone industry has been somewhat more candid than the cable industry about its strategy for the Internet's future. Senior phone executives have publicly discussed plans to begin imposing a new scheme for the delivery of Internet content, especially from major Internet content companies. As Ed Whitacre, chairman and CEO of AT&T, told Business Week in November, "Why should they be allowed to use my pipes? The Internet can't be free in that sense, because we and the cable companies have made an investment, and for a Google or Yahoo! or Vonage or anybody to expect to use these pipes [for] free is nuts!"
Oh, the unending hilarity.
Access providers are only in business because content exists. Make the content less accessible and people will be less motivated to pay for your access.
Not that any of this matters. Even if they somehow managed to tier their service, moderate content accesses or charge on a per-kilobyte basis, all it would take is one new company to provide old-style service to end the morons who think this is going to work.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
Not to mention that the internet happens to be a slightly multinational thing.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Afterall, why make it even EASIER for certain nations to restrict access if they so choose? All they have to do is pay a company a ridiculas sum of money and poof no more http://www.freechechnya.ru Posted by Chreese Sroup (Member # 8248) on :
Most everyone would go to local providers, if there aren't any options; someone locally would fix that I'm sure. Or if you were so inclined you could yourself start a provider.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I don't think suing them would work. They have a valid point. What they wouldn't have is commons sense and a continued market value.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:They have a valid point.
No, they don't.
They're proposing that they deserve more money because other businesses rely on their service. This is the equivilant of saying that if an AT&T customer calls his mother (who has, say, Verizon phone service), AT&T should be able to charge the mother. If the customer has a BellSouth phone, BellSouth should owe AT&T money for every call connected through that phone.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Hey, I think that is a valid point as well. I didn't say it was a workable or affective point, but a valid point none the less. After all, it is THEIR service the mother is using. ATMs use that same argument to charge for using cards from other banks.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:ATMs use that same argument to charge for using cards from other banks.
This isn't the same dynamic: in this situation, someone who ISN'T a customer of the bank who operates the ATM is receiving a service from that bank, and therefore needs to pay for it (in the form of the transaction fee). In the case of a Comcast customer accessing a website or the AT&T customer calling his mother, the customer is already paying for the service.
Another equivilant example would be a customer flying on American Airlines to go to see his daughter perform on Broadway, and American Airlines demanding that they be allowed to charge both the daughter and the theater.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
It's not like these companies are providing magical free bandwidth to people. If part of their network is being used for the internet, then someone is already paying to use it.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I don't find your airline equivalant very convincing. As far as I am concerned it isn't the same thing and is irrelavant to the discussion.
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
When I saw the title, "The end of the internet" I thought you meant this. Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
If only the internet qualified as a book.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
See, I assumed this was the end of the internet. Maybe the thought of no more Strong Bad just feels like it. Posted by Silkie (Member # 8853) on :
When I first saw this I was concerned too. I thought I could get feedback on whether it was valid or not, by posting it here.
I hope that these giants will not be able to shut off the Internet to us peons - and that smart techie folk will subvert them if they do!
quote:Originally posted by Ela: When I saw the title, "The end of the internet" I thought you meant this.
Good one! So is yours, AvidReader!
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
Gotta love those smart techie folk. Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
The argument is deeply flawed, on numerous fronts. First and foremost, there's no fair market -- telecos often have monopolies in most parts of the United States, and the problem's further aggravated by very illegal collaboration between them (as shown by this very issue) to fix prices. Second, regulation of the Internet like this, even aside from the horrible consequences this would have for the greatest human invention since writing, would make ISPs directly responsible for all traffic they route -- which means they'd be legally responsible for, say, piracy or libel. Also, while it's true telecos invested in a new fiber-optics network to replace the old copper system, what isn't being mentioned is that we paid for that investment. Most of the venture was heavily, heavily subsidized by the federal government, and the companies have enjoyed extravagant profits in exchange for promises never lived up to -- so abandoned, in fact, that many communities have invested in their own municipal wi-fi networks, much to the protest of the telecommunications lobby.
I'm sick of this. I'm usually in favor of a free market, but in cases such as this where there's no real competition, I'm fine with nationalization of the fiber optics network we've already paid for and relegation of broadband Internet access to the role of utility, not luxury.
Just. Gah. Greed's fine with me, but such greed during such high profits and at such a cost of a free Internet is a monstrous sin.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I don't want nationalization, but I do want some regulation, especially with regards to neutrality.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:I don't find your airline equivalant very convincing. As far as I am concerned it isn't the same thing and is irrelavant to the discussion.
Your comment might have more value if you explained why instead of just dismissing it, or if you countered any of the other points I brought up.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Just for the record, I am not going to explain why. Perhaps I should have said it is irrelavant to ME and don't believe I need to have a reason for anything. There are times to be understood and there are times to just walk away. This, I feel, is one of those times for me to walk away.
I just don't have a vested interest in going back and forth. I have said my peace on the issue and will continue to consider they have a valid argument as long as they have ownership.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Just for the record, I am not going to explain why. Perhaps I should have said it is irrelavant to ME and don't believe I need to have a reason for anything. There are times to be understood and there are times to just walk away. This, I feel, is one of those times for me to walk away.
I just don't have a vested interest in going back and forth. I have said my peace on the issue and will continue to consider they have a valid argument as long as they have ownership.
What's the point of being part of a forum, or posting in a thread, if you avoid dialogue?
Just curious.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
It's OK, Ocassional, I don't think you're an idiot...
Posted by Chreese Sroup (Member # 8248) on :
Screw regulation. I say let them do whatever they want. The free market will take care of it's self, as I have already stated some possibilites.
I'm pretty sure the company I work for would probably provide more if such huge openings were there. Not to mention Locally X-Mission is and always has been a good option for anyone in Utah.
I say let them shoot themselves. What better way is there to open up space in the market?
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
While I generally like a free market, the telecommunications industry is not one. You don't think I give Sprint money because I want to, do you? I give Sprint money because the government has told me if I want local phone service, I have to.
A free market would be me choosing the service I want, just like I do for long distance. OTOH, a free market would also mean that phone companies could jack up the prices and tell competitors they have to build their own phone lines. We subsidied the lines once, we certainly won't want to do it again, even if it does mean better service.
Unfortunately, any industry that requires a huge investment to enter does not lend itself well to the free market. If I don't like my hospital or power plant, I can't go out and build my own. Same thing with the phone lines. Regulation seems to be a necessary evil.
Posted by Chreese Sroup (Member # 8248) on :
You aren't prevented from gaining capitol investments, and starting your own company which doesn't treat people badly, why don't you?
Edit: In case you don't get my point. You don't have to act as your competitors do. If you treat your customers good, word of mouth alone would be enough to get you really going.
You don't have to build the entire infrastructure to get started. Once the ball is rolling it'd be pretty hard to stop. All you really have to do is play nice, and work hard while starting small.
If the huge companies start jacking prices up on everything it's time for smaller companies to do exactly what I've stated in these posts.
Posted by password (Member # 9105) on :
I have been a Telecommunications Engineer, specializing in Internet Access circuits from 56k to 43MB(T-3), since 1997, when I graduated college. I've done occasional fiber circuits as well up to OC-12 level (which is fairly small, for fiber).
Whether you choose to believe me or not, I'm something of a subject matter expert on this. The article is, to put it kindly, written by someone who isn't.
First, to imply that the Telecom Act of 1996 was a bad deal for the common access to the internet is ludicrous. What the act did was force the entrenched monopolies to provide other companies "last mile access" (that is, lines or fiber to the customer premise) at wholesale prices. The result has been that, when I started, a T-1 line would cost from $1500 to $3000 and last time I was involved in pricing (2003), was availible under $400. That was just about the time HDSL was providing reliable, *repeatable* bandwidth at the T-1 level (1.544 MBps), and since a last mile DSL line wholesales for about $15 and T-1 for about $80, I expect that price will have dropped some more yet.
It also spawned a whole load of competing Telecom companies, more than 85% of which are now dead and the stock values of entrenched telecom giants like MCI/Worldcom (which tanked well before Bernie Ebbers' antics became known), Ericsson and Northern Telecom is testimony to how good it's been for the big names. Also, having worked personally and professionally with SBC/Pac Bell, Bell South, Verizon, and Qwest/US West/Ameritech, I can assert that the Incumbent Local Exchange Carrier despise deregulation. There maybe record profits at the moment, but that's because Telecom has been losing its shirt for the last decade in an effort to underbid each other.
The telecom act has been uneqivocally good for the data consumer and bad for the telecom industry as a whole, as my many unemployed friends can tell you. The competiton is intense and it wouldn't exist at all if it weren't for telecom '96. Of the 5 companies I have been hired by, 3 have failed (one before I could even show up for work!), one was MCI/Wcom (see above), and one is doing well.
Because of that fierce competition, I find the article's main point to be much ado about nothing. First off, service providers already *do* provide varying levels of service, for which you have to pay. Your cell companies charge you per IM unlesss you pay a fee for unlimited IMs. AOL used to limit your minutes online, until competition forced them to join their competitors in offering unlimited service. Most web hosting companies charge you based the bandwidth you use (from people hitting your site) if you are operating at a commercial level. None of this is new, or interfering with the way the internet works.
The first time company tries to charge its subscribers per download or e-mail, they'll go find someone else who won't.
Bandwidth is privately owned. Too many companies out there have too much of it to be threatened by this... or to collude on it.
And, again, I work in Telecom. These companies can't even track their own employees sufficiently... they aren't capable of being organized enough to successfully track their customer's usage. Billing issues are enough of a headache at the moment for them. I'm not privvy to what the bigwigs are discussing, but I can assure you that the scenarios being discussed here are unrealisitic in a very big way for a variety of reasons... and that repealing the Telecom Act of 1996 or regulating Competitive Local Exchange Carriers will make them *more* possible, not less so.
Posted by password (Member # 9105) on :
AvidReader,
If you are in Sprint territiory, you almost *certainly* do have a choice... though you may not be aware of it.
and if not, start your own CLEC. You can, as a CLEC under the Telecom Act, force Sprint to lease you lines, switch time, and everything at a wholesale rate. All you have to do is bill, collect, and pay your lease to Sprint.
But talk to small businesses in your area. I'd be shocked if they haven't been visited by sales reps from competing companies.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)