FCC Chief: AT&T Can Limit Net Bandwidth

<snip>
FCC Chief Kevin Martin yesterday gave his support to AT&T and other telcos who want to be able to limit bandwidth to sites like Google, unless those sites pay extortion fees. Martin made it clear in a speech yesterday that he supports such a a "tiered" Internet.

Martin told attendees at the TelecomNext show that telcos should be allowed to charge web sites whatever they want if those sites want adequate bandwidth.
</snip>

http://www.networkingpipeline.com/blog/archives/2006/03/fcc_chief_att_c.html


I don't think I need to point out how dangerous this will be to internet innovation. Under a tiered plan, your isp could decide that a site (like DU) needed to pay a fee to them in order for their users to have quality response time. Beyond that, this could also be abused to help squelch sites critical of either the ISP or the ISP's agenda (read that as political/financial). Where this would get really scary is if an internet provider decides to start offering services like chat rooms, searches, etc... they then could use this as an excuse to make using other similar sites undesirable.

I think it stinks, but having been on the net since before it was called the Internet (ARPANet for you other old timers out there) and seen how "commercialization" has methodically eliminated much of what was good about the free exchange of information...I am not surprised.

MZr7

http://www.freepress.net/action/

I knew that merger was just the opening salvo, damn it.

The only way to stop this is by a net community sponsored Boycott. I think we should launch one against the top 2 potential offenders in advance of their execution to show the what will happen if they go ahead wtih this plan.

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

With *s hand picked FCC involved in the game we don't have a chance, giving away our spectra, our internet, our parks, our air, our water, everything that could conceivably be the commons is to be privatized.

It almost makes one hope for their frigging rapture. I just wish it would only be half assed and merely lift all those assholes to heaven or wherever it is supposed to sweep these jerks away to! Begone you blighters...

:evilgrin:

Without the chimp and a lapdog congress this appointed twit would have never been there to decide such issues. They, the corporatist are in a hurry and are pushing the buttons to get what they want before the door closes on them in a year or two

On edit, just another angry reactionary response but at least many of us here at DU saw this coming many years ago when realized (or someone clued us in) that the net and blogosphere was an end around the corporate controlled media

:grr:

now they will destroy the "presses" by fees..anything to stop the free flow of information. for the first time in human evolution we are totally connected across the world and the powers of darkness wish to stop this development. knowledge is power and that is what scares them the most...power to and of the people.

:cry:

You know that progressive sites, and other advocates for social justice will be punished and oppressed by higher rates for bandwidth.

In regards to the proposal for AT&T and other providers charging website operators two tiers of bandwidth service: first, he believes that Google and others will refuse to pay. (I think he may be right - the model creates an exponential increase in bandwidth costs and computer geeks understand exponential, even if their accountants don't). He also believes that can be a good thing for him and other small ISPs, that they can pick up business from people who get frustrated when surfing the refusnik sites.

Maybe he's right, and the self-regulating nature of the internet is the better way to go. Maybe it does indeed continue the Clinton tradition of keeping its hands off the business model.

Here, everyone goes to SBC (now AT&T that just bought them out) to get DSL hookups into people's houses. If I want a DSL connection, I'm forced one way or the other to go through AT&T/Bell.

I recall another bill (don't have time to look it up this moment), that was going to allow those that control the hardware links into your house up to the internet (i.e. AT&T) to have that be solely their right to control and mandate that people buy their service instead of other ISP's through their connections. This would also be predatory to smaller companies that just exist out there as ISP's without hardware presence. If you couple that with this legislation, you can see where this is going.

In order to have competition with this new "controlled by the AT&T like oligopoly" influenced goverment agencies, you'd have to have other *big* companies that offer both hardware connections into your home and ISP services. Yes, they ARE trying to control the internet. They know that as the last bastion of free speech and Democracy and the threat to the fascist rule they want to set up soon.

Could Google (for example) completely block searches from AT&T. Think how quickly the ISP clients would bolt!

That would be nasty.

They wouldn't even have to block them entirely. Just make sure they come in after 2-3 pages of other stuff.

They start throttling the internet, everyone (especially consumers) should boycott these parasites.

I had a nasty run-in with AT&T Costumer Service a number of years back. I was basically double-billed and could NEVER get the issue resolved.

Cable Modem service through Comcast no AT&T needed. Kiss my A$$ ATT.

I would change ISPs in a heartbeat. No way is any ISP going to tell me that they are censoring my browsing based on who will or will not pay a bribe to them.

If I'm paying for ISP access then I'm paying to use it any way I see fit, to visit any site I choose, without them making it more or less difficult to visit any one I choose.

:grr:

Well if this happens then I can see some great new business ideas. :D hah, of course this one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. At least it is if I am understanding it right. I mean with current telecom laws aren't the major providers required to give collocation and access to their facilities and infrastructure within reasonable pricing? So wouldn't this just open up a whole new set of alternatives? So wouldn't the actual laws have to be changed in order to allow for such a thing to work?

They've got to make it harder for the underclass to get access to information. Can't have all the peasants getting smart now can we? Guess you could call it an attempt to create the great "mushroom society", you know the whole "keep us in the dark and feed us shit all day" routine.

...On your way home to watch Network 23...



"I tried to tell ya Blokes!"

that so overbuilt fiber optics network, they could give it away and now they are saying, they don't have bandwidth...?

The only problem here is that a handful of fossilized 'telco's, whose own networks have been bought and paid for by the public years ago, have be miserable failures in this industry and now have decided to end competition through government fiat.

Would be nice to get some real socialism, sometime... :eyes:

I believe Wilco owns most of the lines, fiber and otherwise, as well as a lot of switching gear.

They lease it to the (remaining) telecoms.

They have to pay for all that useless dark fiber somehow, so they're going to squeeze everyone any way they can. Even if they have to claim bandwidth limitations, as obviously hypocritical as that is.

T.

who also have free Health Care. Corporate WHORES Amerika. CWA, the new country in which we live.

My local utilities request and receive a rate increase prior to expanding their facilities.

The mom and pop service station has to borrow to buy that new diagnostic machine.

It’s not surprising that that Ma Bell Reborn is looking to crank a few bucks to cover the expense of a capital improvement without having to foot the bill herself.

I also grew up living for a short time next door to Chris Chocola, the RW rep from South Bend, Indiana who's the poster child for Social Security destruction by the GOP (doing yardwork with him for his uncle who was also my dad's boss at the time). We all have people like that we feel ashamed of knowing.

I didn't know much but also went to the same high school as Scott Ritter while living overseas. That's someone who I'd like see sometime to talk to at some point about old high school memories...

There's a startup company out of Canada that's going to give the TelCo's a run for their money. They utilize power lines for broadband access. They're already up and running here in the states and will be listed on the American Stock Exchange in the next couple of weeks.

Unless the phone companies buy them out they could find themselves actually facing some real competition.

There has been discussion and clarification of this issue on slashdot recently. There are two different definitions of "tiered internet," and the blogger mixed them up.

Definition one: An ISP can charge you more to access a 56Mb pipe than a 2Mb pipe. You pay more for more available bandwidth.
Definition two: Some ISPs want to charge content providers a fee in addition to their usual ISP charges to "ensure that their content gets priority in delivery." This is the problematic bit. Many people (myself included) view this as extortion. This is the ISP essentially saying "that's some nice lookin' content you got there, content provider. Would be a shame if something unfortunate were to happen to it on its way to the end user. <wink wink>"

The FCC actually took action against Madison River for degrading or outright blocking Vonage service over its wires. They appear to be on the right side of this issue.

My read from other sources is that the FCC believes that "blocking" clients from external services is bad (ie Vonage)...but charging a fee for providing "top tier" access (eg full bandwidth) is ok. The question becomes who gets charged. I say its the context providers that will have to pay.

Why? because your def #1 is basically a non-starter in my mind. The extent to which ISP's can charge for the size of pipe will be what the market will allow. Companies that have the highest cost pipes will have to compete with others hence allowing some "natural" regulation of the prices. (In an ideal world I know).

Thats why I think they will opt for #2... since #1 is more "risky" in terms of profit for them.

Thanks for pointing out the two facets of this issue more clearly than my reference article.

MZr7

I can't imagine they would approve. Didn't find any comment about this, but found news about a different scheme.

And I remember UUCP, (and FIDO-net), bang-path email addresses, etc. how's that for old school? How about real core? I worked on that and drum as well. Thinking about this, we really should look into an alternative
capability in case the Fed does something really silly like rationing bandwidth.

-Hoot

(like Google) for use of their network/backbone OR to give priority delivery to their subscribers?

If it is the latter, the market might provide relief - ie, switch to Mindspring or another ISP.

If they clog the backbone all HELL will break loose. Let's hope Google continues to live up to their motto - "Do no evil".

the resources to do this. The problem would be if isp's acted like media outlets do today with political adverstising, ie. if they deem it "too controversial" they don't run it, or charge a fee making it prohibitive.

was investigating dark fiber and might be considering buying some of these resources.

higher bandwidth (ie, you pay more for a faster connection with more bandwidth).



Blogger got it wrong.

Most ISPs already charge different rates for different access speeds. The "blog" post in the OP of this thread and the "news" article the blogger links to say much different things.

self delete

And the term "net neutrality" was all the rage. Naturally, the voice over IP guys (Vonage, Skype, etc) want net neutrality, because it lets them innovate and draw customers away from the traditional telcos. Lawrence Lessig gave a great talk on this. (Google "Lessig" and "VON").

If anyone is really passionate about this issue, there's going to be a two-day strategy session called "Freedom To Connect" in Silver Spring, MD on April 3 and 4. Many of the "new telephony" folks will be there. Unfortunately, I can't be there because it conflicts with my grad school class. Here's the URL: http://www.pulvermedia.com/f2c/

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

I dont have another choice they are a outright monopoly here in Santa Cruz California.
What will I do?
Turn off my internet service and save 39.95 per month, Yeah it was a great ride from the late 90's till now. If there is nothing to surf for there is no reason for me to pay these truly evil companies, hopefully millions of people will just simply disconnect. I got along perfectly well with out a stupid computer anyways!
Wont be much of a monopoly if no ones using it!