FCC Backs a Tiered Internet

Going to be extorted writes ""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." Could this be the end of internet innovation?"

Digg screwed this up too.

[Mr. Underbridge]

That's not what he said. He said he's in favor of tiered *access*, as in pay-per-speed cable internet like we have now. He did *NOT* say he was against network neutrality, and even said that they have the power to police that and will do so.

Basically, the blogger completely lacks reading comprehension skills.

Extortion? Not quite.

[eldavojohn]

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.

From Webster's Dictionary:

extortion: to obtain from a person by force, intimidation, or undue or illegal power

So, by what part of extortion are you describing the FCC's actions? Sounds like you're just choosing a word to evoke hate and unrest to me. Remember, bandwidth is not free nor is it a god given right.

Re:I plead the second.

[AKAImBatman]

As another poster [slashdot.org] pointed out, the blogger is wrong here. The FCC has said the following:

In a question-and-answer period in front of the keynote audience, Martin said that "I do think the commission has the authority necessary" to enforce network neutrality violations, noting that the FCC had in fact done so in the case last year involving Madison River's blocking of Vonage's VoIP service.

"We've already demonstrated we'll take action if necessary," Martin said.

In other words, the FCC doesn't want to see the "tiered internet" design, and will slap fines on anyone who tried it. Where the confusion comes in is in this part of his speech:

However, Martin also added that he supports network operators' desires to offer different levels of broadband service at different speeds, and at different pricing -- a so-called "tiered" Internet service structure that opponents say could give a market advantage to deep-pocket companies who can afford to pay service providers for preferential treatment.

While Martin said that consumers who don't pay for higher levels of Internet service shouldn't expect to get higher levels of performance, he did say in a following press conference that "the commission needs to make sure" that there are fair-trade ways to ensure that consumers "get what they are purchasing."

What he's saying is that the FCC is fine with a broadband provider selling you a 6Mbit line at a higher cost than a 2MBit line, as long as you get what you're paying for. The AT&T plan may have resulted in you getting less bandwidth than you paid for if you failed to pay their extortion fees.

"New Yorker" article opposing tiered internet

[smellsofbikes]

This week's issue of The New Yorker had a one-page article briefly summarizing the *actual* tiered internet (google has to pay SBC to ensure QoS, not the tiered-to-consumer plan in TFA) and pointing out why it was such a bad idea. It read just like a +5 Informative from /. with the same points we've all made during previous posts on this, and got me to wondering if the person who wrote it reads /. -- so if you do, thanks! it was lovely and did a great job of explaining to the teeming masses what it means and why it's a bad idea.

Re:Go right ahead

[briancarnell]

Of course, TFA doesn't actually say what the summary claims. Another example of Slashdot outright lying. Must be a weekday.

Perhaps, but you apparently missed this

[GuloGulo]

"Reversing his rhetorical field a bit, AT&T CEO Ed Whitacre on Tuesday declared that his company won't try to block or degrade customers' access to Internet applications or content,"

and this

"Any provider who blocks access to the Internet is inviting customers to find another provider," Whitacre said in his keynote speech. "It's bad business." He then emphatically stated that AT&T would not block independent services, "nor will we degrade [Internet access]. Period, end of story."

Of course he could be lying, but you really shouldn't jump to conclusions.

Re:first question that popped into my head

[Secrity]

The internet divisions of US telcos do not have common carrier status and are essentially unregulated.

Re:Digg screwed this up too.

[TubeSteak]

Well, you amy be right, because everyone seems a touch confused over what's been said.

However, a quick trip over to Google News [google.com] will give you plenty of articles to help clear up any confusion.

I bounced from Ars Technica to a ZDNet article [zdnet.com] that summed it up nicely.

Martin also said he supports the right for network operators to differentiate their networks and prioritize traffic on their networks.

"We need to make sure we have a regulatory environment (in which network operators) can invest in the network and can recoup their costs," he said.

I know this is /. and most people don't even RTFA before opening their mouths (kudos to you Mr. Underbridge for reading it), but if something is confusing or unclear spend the extra 45 second to get more information.

Re:Google will have a tough time even.

[Anonymous Coward]

Tut Systems XL-5050 [tutsys.com], and similar products, will do the job on a pair of regular copper wires.

You can also setup a wireless bridge.

Re:Google really should block AT&T customers

[BartlebyScrivener]

Yep, I remember http://business.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,9075- 2023600,00.html [timesonline.co.uk]

Re:Google will have a tough time even.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is BS.. you can lease private fiber from carriers.. My company is in the process of doing this right now.. We are leasing dark fiber from all of the major carriers to build a large DWDM network then run a new MPLS core over top of this..

IT IS POSSIBLE.. And if your curious as to who, we are one of the top financial firms in the world.

Re:Not bad for an AC

[Anonymous Coward]

You can mesh all you want, but you're going to be lucky to eek out 1 kbps. I've set up mesh networks in ad hoc mode on 802.1b and a and it works fine as long as you have a well fed endpoint and appropriate aggregation and capacity.

Throw unlimited traffic on it (e.g. a neighbor running excessive P2P) and you're hosed. Lacking central administration resources and control to rate-shape and protect your backbone traffic, you're really hosed. And then, were are you gonna get out? You're essentially setting up an ISP and you have to home somewhere if you want to touch the "other" Internet.

A better solution is to immediately drop any stupid carrier like the Bells that are foolish enough to push their "pay for premium access (aka barely reliable access) to my eyeballs" model. They tried this in 1996, they tried in several times in the early 2000s, and they initially planned on this model with ANS and NSFNET through a NAP model that Al Gore was pushing. It failed every time before because customers have a choice: unrestricted "normal" Internet or the pathetic crap the Bells tried to push. Take a look at AT&T's first "Internet" offering - it was access to AT&T's Internet, not /the/ Internet. People were screaming when they signed up on frame relay circuits only to discover the network went nowhere except to other AT&T clients. AT&T tried arguing for nearly a year with these customers that the "other" Internet was unreliable and AT&T's new Internet was better for VPNs.

AT&T finally caved since nearly nobody kept the service and interconnected to the real thing. De facto standards are a bitch, have kept Microsoft a quasi-monopoly and will keep any of these Bell fossils in check (please lord let Qwest be as foolish to try this - it'll finally sink them).

Re:I plead the second.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you think that the government didn't have anything to do with the rise of the Internet, you're on crack. The breakup of Ma Bell was a big factor, and its recent reconstruction as part of the consolidation in the telco industry is why you're seeing the telco's have the monopoly power to pull off this extortion. This didn't happen in the 90's because the FCC was being run by people who didn't let it happen, not because the market magically prevented it from not happening.

Re:I plead the second.

[grimwell]

I think what you are describing is Onion routing [onion-router.net]. Go setup Tor [eff.org] and help out. :)

Re:I plead the second.

[tzanger]

It is time for a second Internet to come into action -- one that is voluntarily connected, one that is run over cabling (or satellite) connections that are not subsidized by any government regime.

L0pht Heavy Industries had quite a bit of information about this. They called it guerilla.net. It seems to be gone now, though. All 9600 baud ham, wifi and optical links... Very cool idea but the problem with it is the same problem that faces amateur radio these days. Lack of general interest.

It's sad. There is a lot of good that can come from this kind of thing, but people don't give a shit unless it has something to do with the latest fads on gossip on TV.

URL for "New Yorker" article

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's a link for the article mentioned:
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/articles/060 320ta_talk_surowiecki [newyorker.com]

Re:Google will have a tough time even.

[cyberscan]

Yup, you illustrate the problem. You stated that you are one of the TOP FINANCIAL FIRMS OF THE WORLD. Major corporations get the service that others only dream of. You either got that lease either because you could afford to pay exorbitant rates or because you have a "partnership" (special connections) with the phone cartel. These are something that most people do not have.