BellSouth: Charge for Website Speed If Google wants better network response, pay us According to the Washington Post, a BellSouth executive yesterday told reporters and analysts that the telco should be able to charge certain websites more if they wish to be accessed by customers more quickly. BellSouth CTO William L. Smith also told reporters BellSouth should be able to charge VoIP carriers for network traffic QOS (quality of service). Obviously advocacy groups aren't impressed, a Public Knowledge rep stating: "Prioritization is just another word for degrading your competitor."
|
  ptrowskiGot Helix?Premium
join:2005-03-14
Putnam, CT
kudos:4 | And the Greedy get greedier,.... Please...they get enough right now, and they want even more control? Please. | |
|  | Jonbo298
join:2004-01-12
Council Bluffs, IA | Re: And the Greedy get greedier,.... We all know Google eats up a ton of bandwidth. If I had DSL with them, I guess I should be afraid it takes half a second more to get search results or even load Google's site.
How much bandwidth did it consume to search Google again? It surely must take megs upon megs of precious bandwidth to do so | |
| |  technickPremium
join:2000-12-16
Wheat Ridge, CO
kudos:1
1 edit | I could start this with the common "Bellsouth Sucks" or "Bellsouth Needs To Go Down In Flames" but well I'm not. There's tons of Bellsouth fan boys on this site who will stick up for Bellsouth again and again. So how do you defend Bellsouth now?
If I could pull the plug on BellSouth existence I would. I ditched them almost two months ago. I am Bellsouth FREE!!! I guess this kind of attitude could be associated with communism. When you support Bellsouth, you are supporting communism and god kills a kitten every time you do.
Sadly enough many people will stay with Bellsouth and not voice their opinion with their pocket book. Just go ahead and conform now fan boys...
Someone needs to smack the taste out of William Smith's mouth.. I wonder if he lives in the Atlanta area and would be willing to hear from some of the folks this would effect. Anyone have his contact information... wait I'll just google it...
--
"Our greatest glory consists not in never falling, but in rising everytime we fall." - Confucius - - - - - - - - - - - Streamfire.net
- - AIM - CoNFuCiUsNiCk | |
| | |  King PDon't blame me. I voted for Ron PaulPremium
join:2004-11-17
Franklin, TN
 ·Comcast
 ·Vonage
| Re: And the Greedy get greedier,.... I don't have Bill Smith's info, but I have just about everyone else at BS Corporate HQ. It's posted on their site too, so it isn't like this is restricted info...muahahahahaha
»bellsouthcorp.com/newsroom/conta···customer
--
Forget 'em, Support the Indies.»www.ind-music.com | |
| | |  PakeIf you can read this.... RUN
join:2001-02-22
Huntersville, NC | Why change services just because Bellsouth wants to charge Google for priority? Does this affect my speeds or my bill? No, not really, outside of Google.com itself.
While it's a dirty business to business tactic, you can't sit here and say we should change our service just to tell them their wrong for their business to business relations.
BTW, I find it funny how you talk of communism at the end of your paragraph, while saying "If I could pull the plug on BellSouth existence I would" at the beginning. | |
| | | | technickPremium
join:2000-12-16
Wheat Ridge, CO
kudos:1 | Re: And the Greedy get greedier,.... So your saying you would be able to get your point across to Bellsouth without canceling and that they will really take you seriously? Pulling the plug on bellsouth has nothing to do with communism. | |
| | | | | PakeIf you can read this.... RUN
join:2001-02-22
Huntersville, NC | Re: And the Greedy get greedier,.... Huh? What I'm saying is I have no need to cancel my service with Bellsouth over what they want to do with another company. When they want to charge the consumer, then it'll be a problem, but reading the article, it sounds more like Bellsouth wants to get some cash from Google or from other internet sites to have those sites load faster.
What they are basically saying is they want to open up a service where internet sites can buy the option for their site to load faster than the competitors site.
Unless they go and slow up the competitors site, while leaving the paying sites speed alone, this affects the consumers so very little.
And lastly, by saying you would pull the plug on Bellsouth, you are basically saying you want total control. So I'll change my wording to totalitarianism. | |
| | | | | | | | Re: And the Greedy get greedier,.... This is going to against what internet is. Reaching the information.
So what do you think next will be? Then, google will charge access to their page. So will you pay for it or your loveboy Bellsouth? | |
| | | | | | jp10558Premium
join:2005-06-24
Willseyville, NY | Yeah, but will Bell South just outright block access to sites that don't want to pay?
Plus, as a customer, isn't there an implicit problem here? That your access could be faster with the plan you've got, but they don't make it faster? Isn't that basically hurting you? Don't you expect your ISP to make every effort to make your internet experiance the best it can be?
I mean, why go with someone who not only is intentionally mediocre, but advertises that fact?
--
Opera 8.5(Build 7700); Windows XP Pro SP2;Athlon 64 3400+; 1GB PC3200 DDR; 1M/128k DSL; NOD32(Version 2.5.25); Outpost Pro 3;Proxomitron 4.5j Grypen 11/27/05(Opera mod),GPG ID:0x0A1C6EE3 | |
| | | | | | | PakeIf you can read this.... RUN
join:2001-02-22
Huntersville, NC
2 edits | Re: And the Greedy get greedier,.... said by jp10558:Yeah, but will Bell South just outright block access to sites that don't want to pay? Plus, as a customer, isn't there an implicit problem here? That your access could be faster with the plan you've got, but they don't make it faster? Isn't that basically hurting you? Don't you expect your ISP to make every effort to make your internet experiance the best it can be? I mean, why go with someone who not only is intentionally mediocre, but advertises that fact? From the article:
quote:
But Smith was quick to say that Internet service providers should not be able to block or discriminate against Web content or services by degrading their performance.
As it stands, the only thing I'm getting from this article is that Bellsouth wants to set up a payment option that internet services could pay to promote their site by giving them faster speeds. They didn't say they would restrict websites, b/c right now, they could if they wanted. They merely are trying to find a way to rack in some cash and what better way than to have companies pay you so their site loads faster than the other.
As it stands though, I see nothing in the article that screams "Bloody murder! I must cancel my service that is working exactly as it says it would!"
quote:
Plus, as a customer, isn't there an implicit problem here? That your access could be faster with the plan you've got, but they don't make it faster? Isn't that basically hurting you? Don't you expect your ISP to make every effort to make your internet experiance the best it can be?
As it stands, all services in the US and many countries don't exactly try to live up to the best they can be. I was at 3.0 spds last year, while they could have given me my current 6.0 spds multiple years ago. It's not some unknown fact, b/c every year there are at least 2 companies upping their speeds and we read about it and argue about it right on these very forums. Do I want the best service possible? Heck yeah, but so does everyone and no one is getting it nor will anyone get it unless everyone in the whole USA decides to cancel their internet service all at once and demand the best service possible. | |
|
| | | | | Google pays for internet connectivity to someone, maybe it is actually BellSouth. I don't know, nor do I care. Point is that whoever it is that Google is paying for connectivity only needs to concern itself with providing the SLA and speed/bandwidth they are contracted by Google to provide. Now if Google comes to the above and says "Hey we want our traffic at a higher priority then any other traffic for companies that you are hosting" then that company is free to charge whatever Google is willing to pay to have their packets routed at a higher priority once it hits the hosting companies network. Provided of course that every other customer of that provider has already agreed (thru a EULA or whatever) to allow them to lower the priority of their packets. Because you can’t raise the priority of one packet without lowering the priority of every other packet.
No connectivity provider (backbone, ISP, Telco, Cable Co) has any right to interfere with any packet coming across the internet. Regardless of the number or the destination of such packets. They should remain transparent packet routers who's only concern should be with the SLA and speed/bandwidth they were contracted to provide. If they want to limit speed and amount of packets that one can send/receive so be it. Let ISP's and hosting companies create the packages for us to review and make an educated decision to buy or not to buy. And US would include user's as well as content providers like Google.
If BS is implying that they should be charging Google or any other company for packets directed to their servers from a BS client on the BS network, they are simply entering waters they have no business being in. They have absolutely no right to interfere with a user’s packet in any way as long as that user is within the scope of the speed/bandwidth that they have contracted for. If the user goes outside of that limit, then and only then does BS have a right to interfere with that specific user’s connection. | |
|
| | the dozerPremium
join:2004-04-12
Douglasville, GA | I think it's good your BellSouth free!!! Your attitude could be associated with communism. I think you had one too many falls as a child. Kind of a nut if you ask me.
said by technick:I could start this with the common "Bellsouth Sucks" or "Bellsouth Needs To Go Down In Flames" but well I'm not. There's tons of Bellsouth fan boys on this site who will stick up for Bellsouth again and again. So how do you defend Bellsouth now? If I could pull the plug on BellSouth existence I would. I ditched them almost two months ago. I am Bellsouth FREE!!! I guess this kind of attitude could be associated with communism. When you support Bellsouth, you are supporting communism and god kills a kitten every time you do. | |
|
|  pikePremium,MVM
join:2001-02-01
Cleveland, OH
kudos:1 | Truly sad.
It's too bad control of the internet has gone to greedy, for-profit corporations.
It wouldn't surprise me if this type of thing was already going on -- eg. SBC prioritizing Yahoo! traffic over Google, MSN, etc.
-Mike
--
XM411.com - XM discussion, reviews and community | |
|
| | Monopolist I did say this would be coming!
Damn trolls Wouldn't Listen!
--
Who do you want to pay off today? | |
| |  en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | Re: Monopolist Any way for a company to 'legally' make money for its shareholders.
If they are at a profit cap on their current product, start extorting money. What good would a 6000/608 product be, if a filter the size of a T1 was put on a main portal. I'm sure that it Bell South had its VoIP product out, there wouldn't b e a traffic issue, and they would be the first to cry foul if someone filtered their traffic. | |
| |  pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | said by packetscan:I did say this would be coming! Damn trolls Wouldn't Listen! So you switch ISPs. What's the big deal?
--
Rove / Rumsfeld 2008! | |
| | | | | Re: Monopolist What's the big deal?
If Bellsouth does this and gets away with it.
I fear EVERY ISP would then be willing try it..
They are in business to make money.
--
Who do you want to pay off today? | |
| | | | pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Re: Monopolist said by packetscan:If Bellsouth does this and gets away with it. If people cancel this ISP because of this stupid idea, then by definition BS won't be getting away with it. When people call BS and complain that Google doesn't load fast enough (especially since there is almost nothing in terms of HTML on their pages) and the CSR tells them that Google didn't pay the BS bribery fee, those customers will most likely cancel BS and switch to another ISP.
Other ISPs will see this and the smart ones won't repeat this mistake. You would have thought though that BS would have learned from SBC when they made this statement and then had to retract it.
BTW - BS can either mean BellSouth or Bull$#!+ in this post. I trust you will be able to decide the proper context 
--
Rove / Rumsfeld 2008! | |
| | | | |  DaSneaky1Done wall to block them allPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-29
The Lou | Re: Monopolist People are not that smart to understand that. | |
| | | | | Reviews:
·Charter
| said by pnh102:If people cancel this ISP because of this stupid idea, then by definition BS won't be getting away with it. Thats fine, and what happens when the backbone provider do the same thing? Say Level3 decides google can have 2 terrabytes over their portion of the backbone per month. Anything beyond that they throttle back to 3Kbps, unless Google pays their extorion... --
Got a new podcast to share? Looking for a podcast?
Pcsites.com | |
| | | | | | pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Re: Monopolist said by rahlquist:Thats fine, and what happens when the backbone provider do the same thing? Say Level3 decides google can have 2 terrabytes over their portion of the backbone per month. Anything beyond that they throttle back to 3Kbps, unless Google pays their extorion... But again, people will complain to their ISPs about not being able to access their websites. Customers won't care about backbone providers and such; they just want to access Google and they will happily switch from an ISP which doesn't provide them with access to Google to one that does. Of course, ISPs have more than one choice in backbone providers and they could also dump a provider if it pulled this kind of a stunt.
--
Rove / Rumsfeld 2008! | |
| | | | | | | npyoung
join:2002-09-23
Jacksonville, OR | Re: Monopolist You assume that there's someone to switch to for broadband. In most markets, if you are lucky, there are two: cableco and telco. Ben and Ben Dover. | |
| | | | | | | | pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Re: Monopolist said by npyoung:You assume that there's someone to switch to for broadband. In most markets, if you are lucky, there are two: cableco and telco. Ben and Ben Dover. This goes back to the issue of usability. If both choices of ISP block access to the content that a customer wants, why would the customer bother using either choice? In the end it still hurts the ISPs if they do this.
--
Rove / Rumsfeld 2008! | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Monopolist Dude cut down to half doses and come back to earth. | |
|
| | | | | WMLGuy
join:2000-06-05
Rockaway, NJ | That's the best thing that can happen. Then Google won't index their pages and won't send any emails to servers that go through their networks. And no one will know of level3 or bellsouth that doesn't live in their territories.
What all these companies aren't realizing is that they use the services of these other companies as well. I'm sure there are people who call long distance from BellSouth land lines to vonage users and pay bell south for the phone call. | |
| | | | | | | | Google will buy L3 or anyone else that gets in their way. | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Monopolist No, google will not. As soon as stock speculators realize google is at the mercy of the ISPs, their stock will collapse. | |
|
| | | | | | First of all, they will more than likely never be told that.
Second, if anyone expects to get a true 6 megs down or even half from any web site, they are sadly mistaken. All web sites have caps per user. Get over it. And if Google takes up so much bandwidth, then I am sure its in their right to charge for it (just like toll roads) and people still drive their cars down they every day.
Even if it is filtered at 1.5 down, be lucky that Google even allows you to grab content at 100k sec.
For more reading see this older post.
»arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20···498.html | |
| | | | | |  MizzatWill post for thumbsPremium
join:2003-05-03
Atlanta, GA
kudos:1
 ·AT&T Southeast
| Re: Monopolist Though most of your post is way off topic and wrong. I pull data from many websites at over 6Mbps...
It sounded to me like the SBC guy in that article was talking about a VoIP provider using his pipes without a subscriber having service through SBC, or at least the VoIP paying a reseller fee to SBC. I can understand that...
As far as this news topic. I doubt what this BellSouth gentleman said will ever get off the ground. It sounds like a pipe dream to me, no pun intended. I doubt consumers will agree with it, or businesses. Since most websites use co-location to run their websites, there are many providers that connect to those co-los, they simply wouldn't choose BellSouth if was going to cost their customers more, or cause latency, IMO. If he is speaking of charging for DSL/DIA users that have BellSouth, I don't know if any customer would want a company that has other companies choose who is more of a priority for them. Sounds like a bad move in my opinion.
I think they should be allowed to prioritize some traffic over their own networks, such as the IP TV channels customers pay for and medical data it suggests in the article, but charging sites for their priority seems like a bad idea to me. | |
| | | | | | pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | said by NerdMods:First of all, they will more than likely never be told that. You are probably correct. For the sake of argument, let's say the customer calls tech support on multiple occasions and is given varying types of BS responses as to why a website like Google is "slow." How many of these customers are going to just say "screw this" and switch to a new ISP, especially if said ISP won't degrade connectivity to these websites?
Internet access is a tool just like any other. If a tool breaks or doesn't do the job correctly, most people replace the tool. The same goes with Internet access.
said by NerdMods:Second, if anyone expects to get a true 6 megs down or even half from any web site, they are sadly mistaken. All web sites have caps per user. Get over it. That's true for the most part as well, the actual speed that a website loads is dependant on how wide the pipes are between the customer and the website. However, BS plans to increase load times for sites which don't pay up by gunking up the connection at the user's end.
I also don't think such a move by BS would go unnoticed even outside of the tech community. Look at all the problems that SBC ran into when it tried to implement the same thing.
said by NerdMods:And if Google takes up so much bandwidth, then I am sure its in their right to charge for it (just like toll roads) and people still drive their cars down they every day. That's an issue between Google and its hosting providers. Google can always pay them more so more people can access their site. If I were Google, I would put up a different page for BS customers which says something along the lines of "Can't see this page fast enough? It's BS' fault. You should try a new ISP instead"
--
Rove / Rumsfeld 2008! | |
|
| | | | | | Just up an Cancel..
Well you know what not everyone has that ability.. Why?
The Current Monopolist Regional telco system is Not built for Competition and if people want to compete they have to pay say SBC so there profits goto shit because they are forced to lease equipment / lines from the telco..
How many people can not get broadband period?
Thanks end of discussion.
--
Who do you want to pay off today? | |
|
| |  dru
join:2000-09-14
Corona, CA | Switch if you can? The problem is, the FCC recently issued decisions that release the Bell companies from having to lease their lines to other ISPs. Your only choice beside the cable company (and no ISP choice there)is the Bell's own ISP.
It is unclear whether the Bells will continue to lease access to their networks will continue after the FCC mandated term and long-term contracts run out. Currently, those of us in the industry speculate they will, but will impose terms and conditions that will make continuing a moot point. Verizon quickly yanked access to FIOS lines for independent ISPs within a week of the FCC ruling. ISPs can resell Verizon Online Internet FIOS under a branding agreement at retail prices, which is pointless for any ISP to do so.
In a couple of years, you may not have the choice to switch to another DSL based ISP. It will be Bell(South) or your cable company. You might, or might not have a third wireless option. Oh yeah, never mind, that's Verizon or Cingular owned by the same people, and the FCC is allowing them to snap up or otherwise tie-up new and available licensed frequencies for Wimax and other forthcoming technologies.
The FCC thinks that the "Duopoly" between cable and DSL is good for consumers and the market competition between them is sufficient to keep the internet free and open. Yeah, right.
Take one look at who owns the largest cable network after the mega mergers and Adelphia acquisition, and only a fool would bet that they will be above "content management" or other euphemisms that will be created to justify turning their pipelines into a content cash-cow.
Now look at the combined SBC/AT&T backbone, and Verizon/MCI ("uunet")backbone. Together they currently provide the majority of the World's backbone! Even if independent ISPs thrive and cable companies don't impose fees to content providers or play QOS games, what is to stop the two Bell companies from de-peering content companies or "optimizing" bandwidth to favor their services and offerings.
Unfortunately, our current administration and congress has been bought and paid for by the Bell and cable lobbyists.
To cement the propriety of the mega-mergers, the Bells hired union and charitable organization shills to stack state PUC hearings. They now have big money to lobby, advertise, and reinforce their monopoly position using legal, political, and even questionable ethics, like hiding behind organizations claiming to be "consumer groups" against government abuse and unfair competition.
Cities and local governments who have seen the handwriting on the wall with the current efforts for "national franchises" are expressing interest in establishing open broadband or wi-fi networks for all their citizens. Before you can say "unfair government competition" the Bells and cable companies descend upon City Hall with referendums, lawsuits, and attacks from shill "consumer groups" along with every other method to frustrate any meaningful attempt to establish an alternative to the entrenched incumbents.
The justification and reason for all this is that the directors of these mega-companies are responsible to their shareholders for a return on investment. Well, if that is where the buck finally stops, then any AT&T, Verizon, Time-Warner, etc shareholder should be aware that they are all a sharing the end of a free, open internet as we now know it.
--
I feel like I'm diagonally parked in a parallel universe. | |
| | |  quetwoThat VoIP GuyPremium
join:2004-09-04
East Lansing, MI | Re: Monopolist said by pnh102:said by packetscan:I did say this would be coming! Damn trolls Wouldn't Listen! So you switch ISPs. What's the big deal? Not everybody has the option of switching to another ISP. If there are no other CLECS that have DSL in your CO, then you are pooched, and have to put up with their BS. (Assuming you won't consider going back to Dialup) | |
|
 MxxCon
join:1999-11-19
Brooklyn, NY | WTF is that douchebag smocking?! | |
| WMLGuy
join:2000-06-05
Rockaway, NJ | Confused Quote from article:
"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."
Bellsouth, along with every other ISP, has this today. Slow Internet access (six-day ground): $14/month
Faster Internet access (two-day air): $40+/month | |
| | JonR800Premium
join:2003-08-06
Farmington, MI | Re: Confused said by WMLGuy:Quote from article: "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." Bellsouth, along with every other ISP, has this today. Slow Internet access (six-day ground): $14/month Faster Internet access (two-day air): $40+/month I don't think it could be said any better. Someone needs to remind these execs what business they're in.
Telcos are just green with envy (and greed) that content providers are really starting to make money. They probably had a big meeting to figure out how to get a piece of the pie. | |
| | | | | Re: Confused They must have held this meeting of the "minds" in the dunce corner.
What is to stop telcos from doing this to any internet site, not just Google?
Do you think Google and the others are going to just sit around wand wait for ISP's to pick their pockets?
All BS and others will be doing by trying this is accelerate the competition in their own markets. What Google and others will do is fund their own ISP services and where would that leave BS and SBC? | |
| | | | | | Re: Confused It will leave them laughing all the way to the bank as @Home v2.0 crashes and burns, or Rhythms Netconnections v2.0 crashes and burns, or WinFirst v2.0 crashes and burns, or Northpoint v2.0 crashes and burns, or Global Crossing v2.0 crashes and burns, or 360 Networks v2.0 crashes and burns.
Haven't you guys figured it out yet? This game has already been played, and the monopolies won. | |
|
| | | nuh uh uh... not quite right:
6 day ground: DSL
2 day air: fiber
paying for 2 day air and then having the shipping company tell you "too bad 2 day air now means 6 day ground, and even though they are the same they have different names and diferent prices": BellSouth, and with some extent nearly every other ISP. I mean, if you have 1 15/2 setup w/Verizon, youre not allowed to host your own personal non-commercial FTP server. I mean, WTF? you have all that bandwith youre never going to use with an always on connection and you cant run your own FTP server?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
F***ing leeches who just want to siphon away all of our money........... god f*** them...... | |
| | | | | Re: Confused While I agree that you should be able to use the bandwidth how you see fit, Verizon is just using standard CYA procedures.
Probably 75-80% of those who wish to host a personal non-commercial FTP server would be doing so to distribute warez. 2MB/s upload makes a fine dump. Before OOL decided to crack down and cap people, a few years back, lots of people who had OOL connections used them to provide dumps for IRC channels.
Anywho, as to the main topic, I fail to see how Google or any other content provider should be forced to pay tribute payments to ISPs for QoS of their content. Content providers themselves pay for bandwidth, so its not like anyone is getting a free ride, except for the consumer.
I feel bad for those who have BellSouth and are unable to switch to another high-speed carrier. One can only hope that someone with big enough guts decides to roll out their own infrastructure and bring competition to the table....and not be legislated or injunctioned out of business. | |
|
King PDon't blame me. I voted for Ron PaulPremium
join:2004-11-17
Franklin, TN | hahaha this is one of the reasons why I ditched BS and went with Speakeasy and Vonage. Now they have NO control over my bandwidth.
--
Forget 'em, Support the Indies.»www.ind-music.com | |
| | | won't hold water Just cause I want a Ferrari, does not mean I can have one.
BellSouth argument will not stand up in court. Anti-trust laws will kick in real soon. | |
| |  Wills
join:2001-01-03
Port Charlotte, FL | Re: won't hold water Why wouldn't this hold up? This is no different than Google charging to list your page higher in their search engine.
BellSouth is doing the exact same thing to Google...
--
I have a shaved head, a goatee, and tatoos. Don't you realize the rules don't apply to me. | |
| | | vic102482Premium
join:2002-04-30
Upper Marlboro, MD Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| Re: won't hold water said by Wills:Why wouldn't this hold up? This is no different than Google charging to list your page higher in their search engine. BellSouth is doing the exact same thing to Google... That is the business model of google and ads, classifieds are based on paying for your "spot" the internet you pay for a point of presence, not a point of presence over XYZ. Way too dangerous to trust in the hands of an incompetent company like Bell South.
--
I tie a rope around my penis and jump from a tree, don't you wanna grow up to be just like me!!!! | |
| | | | | "Legislating otherwise "would be the same thing as saying to Google, 'I think we ought to have regulation on Google that says when I enter a search term, the top search result is always a random event,' " Smith said, claiming that Google allows clients to pay to influence the ranking of search results. In fact, Google does not allow payments to influence general search results, although advertisers pay for top billing on the lists that run on the right side of Google's pages." -> Straight from the article.
Are you sure you read the whole thing? | |
|
| | Bellsouth Clown Who is this BellSouth clown, and what Circus do we send him to? | |
|  skelet0rPremium
join:2004-04-26
Florence, AL | MONEY! I was under the impression that if you paid to run a web server, that you were getting a good line, hence the higher bill. So basically they are saying that they can give extra bandwidth, for special applications, but you have to pay even more, nice. So when are they going to start charging extra because you play games online, I mean surely that takes up as much bandwidth as Voip. | |
| | | | Re: MONEY! Poser Mobile?
Poser BELL ! | |
|
| | resource hog Right- Because Google's pages take up sooo much bandwidth with their fancy graphics and busy pages!  | |
| | skelet0rPremium
join:2004-04-26
Florence, AL | Re: resource hog they aren't talking about Google, they are talking about sites like Heavy or Liquid Generation. They are also talking about applications that use bandwidth at a constant rate, such as Voip and Videochat. Basically, it seems to me they are saying that they can reduce latency for said applications, its just going to cost more, which is pretty sad. You would think that Qos would be a concern for all Telcos and Cable internet providers, but apperantly only if you are willing to spend. | |
|
1 edit | They would just use yahoo or something - then they'll have to charge them too! | |
|  MSaukMSaukPremium
join:2002-01-17
Sandy, UT | hmmm, what is that smell? ......is that crack? I think it is time that they drug test BS executives! | |
| | |
Both got it wrong. When I buy service from a Telco or Cable provider, I am buying a connection not content. Google provides content but not the connection. It is ridiculous for a Telco to demand me or a company pays for content that is not being provided by the Telco. If Google wants to levy a charge for content it is Google’s business not Bell South. | |
|  ropeguruPremium
join:2001-01-25
Mechanicsville, VA
2 edits | If I remember correctly, SBC was the first to start this kind of talk a few weeks back. Now that one telco has started I guess all of them are going to jump on the band wagon.
I see it like this.. I pay my ISP for access to the internet for getting to the information I need. I don't care whether it is web pages, FTP or Voip, I pay for access to the internet. I DO NOT pay for a higher speed plan to access just only the data that is on my ISP's network.
I can see it now. The next marketing will be "15 MegaBit Unlimited High Speed Internet Access".
Fine Print: Unlimited means only 2 GB per month data transfer. High Speed Internet Access means only to those parts of the network that we own and control. All access out of our control will be limited to 50 kilobits per second unless you pay us much more!
--
FWD#: 223611 | |
| tkdslr
join:2004-04-24
Pompano Beach, FL Reviews:
·Speakeasy
1 edit | Same argument got Level 3 in trouble,
with the provisions of the Clayton Anti-trust Act.
Deceiving it's retail customers and then with holding access in exchange for a ransom. BS that's a really bad idea.
I.E. It is deceptive to advertise enhanced DSL speeds, if the customer can only connect(at those rates) to those content providers who have to payed off BS. | |
|  Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4 | Bell South won't win this particular fight. Yes, they are big and rich. But they will be fighting it out with web content providers that are bigger and richer(MS, Google, APPLE, SUN,TV networks, Fox, ABC, NBC, Disney, SONY, etc, etc). And if they expect Congress to back them over these others, they made an error in judgement.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
My Web Page | |
| | | | Re: BellSouth won't win fight with web providers "Bell South won't win this particular fight. ... And if they expect Congress to back them over these others, they made an error in judgement."
I wish I could share your optimism.
The comments here and by sbc make it clear where they intend to take us.
Congress doesn't have to back them. The government has already given them most of the trump cards. Congress only has to be unwilling to do the major work needed to stop them and we have put ourselves in a situation where there is little way to stop them without significantly shifting policy course. They control the line and we have created conditions which allowed them to concentrate power, while we have simultaneously deregulated them. The competition that we allowed to whither and die is the only real counterweight.
There are no indications, in the present climate, that the government is willing to make a profound conceptual change in policy direction and begin pushing back with things like threats of divestiture. The government doesn't exhibit the will to strengthen competition in the market. Simply leaving the present situation alone(the falsely named "let the market handle it" approach) isn't going to do it.
I believe there will be another round of anti-trust action, but it will take decades to build and play out.
In the meantime we need some assertion of the legitimacy of municipal broadband and some way to end the incumbent use of the courts to try to perpetually trap municipal operations.
We also need serious wireless spectrum reform(i.e. something beyond propertizing and selling off spectrum to the big players).
For example see Yochai Benkler
»www.benkler.org/Pub.html#IP | |
|
| | If they try to get paid for other peoples work and restrict access to sites, they are going to be sued. A lot of places have one choice for broadband and putting restrictions on a connection without an alternative choice is a lot worse than microsoft including media player in its OS. | |
| | | Ok, I'm frustated with this article, please bear with me if I don't make much sense.
Why should they care about what packets transverse their network? They sell a connection to the internet, and nothing more (and I'm fine with that). But, when they get into the idea of prioritizing packets with their "business partners" or, the real purpose, harming their competitors, I get the hibby jibbies.
What upsets me more, is the guy trying to equate a second-class, and first class ticket. I have always thought of the internet as a place where race, and money, had nothing to do with it. I really don't know what else do say... :/ | |
| | | | Re: Business 100% correct - I'm agreeing to pay for access to the internet, not the parts of the internet that generate additional revenue for you.
The shipping analogy is complete bunk - to make it applicable you would have to say that I can agree to pay for a certain shipping rate/speed (such as 6 day ground) but if I don't buy the packaging from you or a company that pays you a kick-back, my package will actually take 18 days - it's all spelled out in the mile long Screw the End User Licensing Agreement...
I find it funny how the same monopoly based ISPs that say "oh no, we'd never intentionally limit competitive products on our networks" when talking to congressional committees about updating fair access laws will then turn around and spout off to the media about collecting additional "fees" from competitive providers. Perhaps they're testing the water - I don't know. In the end, using your own market position to limit competition is against the law. However, I think it’s anyone’s guess as to how this would play out in the courts - should it come to that. | |
| |
approval from:
tschmidt 
| "Why should they care about what packets transverse their network? They sell a connection to the internet,"
I believe david isenberg said the ideal network(stupid network) is capital repellent.
see isenberg's paradox of the best network
»netparadox.com/
The incumbents don't want to be in the packet delivery business. They have big content dreams and are jealous of the cablecos. | |
|
 P NessYou'Ve Forgotten 9-11 AlreadyPremium
join:2001-08-29
way way out | AOL tried to survive on a CLOSED network where they got a share of the profits from all the "content"...
umm..that seemed to work at first...but look at them now...bleeding money and members year over year because they could not deliver new content as fast as the free web.
DUH
--
www.stopfcc.comI do not think the government needs to restrict free speech especially on a device that has an off knob. | |
| | | | Re: AOL!! Do they ever learn from the past They may be bleeding members, but not exactly money. They are still profitable after all. | |
|
 Gandalf1315Freelance Philosopher
join:2001-05-23
Indianapolis, IN | Greed folks. Pure and simple greed. The corporations in America are out of control at this point and they need reeled in. What we are seeing in America today is not capitalism. It is greed, it is the rich getting richer at the expense of everyone and everything.
The American dream is getting killed. If you come up with a new way to make money the long established corporations are going to do everything in their power to buy legislation to stop you. They don't want to share the pie. They want it all for themselves.
It is not terrorism that we need to fear folks, it is the American corporations because they are the ones that are going to destroy this Country. They are going to bring this Country to its knees and the Great Depression is going to look like a New Years Eve Party when they are through.
--
No man's life, liberty or fortune is safe while our legislature is in session.--- Benjamin Franklin | |
| |
See 9 replies to this post | |
| | Retraction, "statement was taken out of context" damage control in 3...2...1... | |
| | | | Re: Hmm... It seems that BellSouth wants to make money by charging their customers access to the web; then turn around and charge web content providers when those customers access the content. Typical of the bells business practices. My guess, there is no more money to be made as an isp. Maybe after seeing the growth of Google, Yahoo, Amazon and Ebay they want piece of the dot com action. | |
| | | | Well I took it two ways. One, the way everyone here took it. The other being that if content providers want faster wider access then they should pay for the upgrades. | |
| | | | | Re: Hmm... said by bogey780:Well I took it two ways. One, the way everyone here took it. The other being that if content providers want faster wider access then they should pay for the upgrades. Why should content providers pay for faster access? I already pay my isp for those faster access. If I am paying my isp for 7000 kbps down load speed content providers should not have to pay for sending data, that I request, at 7000 kbps speed. Also, content providers only respond to requests from isp customers and shouldn't have to pay to access those customers; since, they didn't. | |
| | | | | | Re: Hmm... To get from one spot on the internet to another you have to take hops. Some hops get congested because of certain providers. Some people want a better ping. It could be from this that Bellsouth will offer to lower the amount of hops or redirect traffic around congestion for a fee.
But yea, either way it presents a problem since the possibility of impropriety is great. Though I'd pay a little more if they could get my ping lower to some servers. | |
| | | | |  rr73
@mia.bellsouth.ne | Re: Hmm... Don't forget that the ping times point you are making refers to routing, and those conjested points typically affect "areas" of the Internet, not specific sites, rerouting for the benefit of one customer may makes things worse somewhere else. | |
|
| |
|
|
