The Cost of a Tiered Internet 246
An anonymous reader wrote in to mention a Popular Science article about the money issues involved in a tiered internet. From the article: "With a tiered Internet, such routing technology could be used preferentially to deliver either the telecoms' own services or those of companies who had paid the requisite fees. What does this mean for the rest of us? A stealth Web tax, for one thing. 'Google and Amazon and Yahoo are not going to slice those payments out of their profit margins and eat them,' says Ben Scott, policy director for Free Press, a nonprofit group that monitors media-related legislation. 'They're going to pass them on to the consumer. So I'll end up paying twice. I'm going to pay my $29.99 a month for access, and then I'm going to pay higher prices for consumer goods all across the economy because these Internet companies will charge more for online advertising.'" Update: 05/26 16:54 GMT by Z : The article is hosted on CNN, but is original material from Popular Science. Post updated to reflect this.
Re:Fix it (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm sorry, I don't see the "bad" in this situation.
All kidding aside, that's a spectacularly bad idea. The internet is about freedom. I would just like to see a law saying that if you are prioritizing services, you must disclose this to the customer and potential customer, in addition to telling them what consideration you receive for doing so. That way, consumers can make an informed choice.
I don't think the idea is viable (Score:2, Interesting)
That is, as long as there is competition in the Internet bandwidth space. I don't know what it's like now, but back in '99 or so there was quite a bit of competition as these companies were fighting to get the business.
So google.com has a internet connections coming in from AT&T, and AT&T says "You have to pay us extra because you are google". What's google going to do? They're going to call around and find someone else to provide the service.
Unless all the ISPs get together and collude on rate structures, which would be illegal, competition is going to solve this problem.
Frankly, it's just about the dumbest idea that the communication companies could have ever come up with. Not only won't it work, but they're giving themselves a black eye by looking greedy.
Depends on implementation details (Score:3, Interesting)
But what if they left the existing infrastructure in place and focused offering on enhanced access to paid sites through selective, local staging and caching (such as leveraging telco-based Yotta Yotta or Akamai implementations)? It seems reasonable to charge for this, it doesn't really impact the rest of the world, and it could enable much faster access.
Ok, it does sound a little bit evil. But certainly far less than deliberately routing non-paying sites through lower bandwidth lines.
Forgotten What the Internet Is All About? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Remove their common carrier status. (Score:3, Interesting)
Support Moveon.org / Christian Coalition's NYT Ad (Score:2, Interesting)
Easy? (Score:3, Interesting)
Easy did they say? What planet are they on? Every time a packet crosses a carrier, the priority may or may not be paid equal attention to. I wouldn't think for even a second that AT&T will treat Verizon's prioritized packets with as high a priority as their own customer's prioritized packets.
Even more misunderstood is that the last mile makes much more of a difference than the backbones. If your local ISP doesn't care about the differenciated services settings, all the money Google, Yahoo, and Disney shell out for better streaming video performance won't add up to much. The Disneys of the scene will eventually figure out that they paid for the privilege of slowing everybody down, not speeding themselves up. That should be an interesting fight.
Easy...
not really (Score:3, Interesting)