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.
He threw in his lot with AT&T, Verizon, and the other telcos, who are no doubt salivating at the prospect at charging whatever the market can bear.
He did throw a bone to those who favor so-called "net neutrality" -- the idea that telcos and other ISPs should not be allowed to limit services or bandwidth, or charge sites extra fees. He said that the FCC "has the authority necessary" to enforce network neutrality violations. He added that it had done so already, when it stepped in to stop an ISP from blocking Vonage VoIP service.
But Martin's interpretation of "net neutrality" is far too narrow, and almost besides the point. By siding with telcos who want to be able to offer adequate bandwidth to sites that pay up, and to limit bandwidth to sites that don't, he'll help kill off new sites that can't afford to fork over the money.
That could help end Internet and network innovation, and we simply can't afford that.
Google doesn't use the bandwith - the people going to Google's site do.
If Google were pushing its content out then that would be one thing, but they are not, customers are pulling it in... having the page load quickly is precisely why they pay for broadband internet access in the first place.
yeti wrote:Google doesn't use the bandwith - the people going to Google's site do.
If Google were pushing its content out then that would be one thing, but they are not, customers are pulling it in... having the page load quickly is precisely why they pay for broadband internet access in the first place.
I was thinking the same thing. Had issues putting it into words. I was thinking that maybe the news was refering to AT&T charging google a rate depending on how much bandwidth needed to host the site.
I guess if it's the ISP charging google, like yeti has noted, it's crazy. That means any popular site will get charged a ton because an ISP has to provide more bandwidth because the site is popular
Not only that, but Google pays for their access just like everyone else.
They can upload data at precisely the limit of the connection that they PAY for, and no faster. If AT&T doesn't like the fact that data from other networks is streaming across their network, then they should contact the carrier in question, not the end customers (in this case Google).
yeti wrote: Not only that, but Google pays for their access just like everyone else.
Exactly. If google's traffic increase by two, they'll need more bandwidth from their host, but at that point their host will charge them more for their extra needed bandwidth to support that level of traffic.
yeti wrote:
They can upload data at precisely the limit of the connection that they PAY for, and no faster. If AT&T doesn't like the fact that data from other networks is streaming across their network, then they should contact the carrier in question, not the end customers (in this case Google).
Exactly. Interesting how it works, but we don't get money back when we use only 2MB/s of the 6MB/s we're provided from our ISP
Last edited by XtremeJibber2001 on Jun 2nd, '06, 11:59, edited 1 time in total.
yeti wrote:Google doesn't use the bandwith - the people going to Google's site do.
If Google were pushing its content out then that would be one thing, but they are not, customers are pulling it in... having the page load quickly is precisely why they pay for broadband internet access in the first place.
hmmmm.....didn't think of it in those terms. Does seem that the telcos are
looking for a way to double dip.
Changed my mind. Ingore previous. Thanks.
What is not possible is not to choose. ~Jean-Paul Sartre
I suspect they are just now discovering that they made a deal that isn't as profitable for them as it could have been.... so they are now trying to change the rules.
It's not even their host that's going to charge them, rather, they'll get a bill from AT&T that comes completely out of the blue. So, basically, here's the new billing rundown:
1. Hosting/ISP for the Web site.
2. Access fee for browsers (i.e. Road Runner, AOL, etc.)
3. Big TeleCo sending bills out to Web site for traffic on their infrastructure that goes to Web site.
Now, what I'm wondering -- and please correct me if I'm wrong -- is that a lot of the traffic on the Internet is piped through the lines based on TCP/IP protocals which basically means that Web companies can't control how traffic to their sites is routed. In other words, Google would not be able to prevent traffic from running through AT&T's lines, yet will incur AT&Ts pricing structure with little to no say in the matter.
After failing last week to add a provision to a telecommunications reform bill, four Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives Tuesday introduced a free-standing bill aimed at preventing broadband carriers from discriminating against competing Web content or services.
The bill, sponsored by Representatives Ed Markey of Massachusetts, Jay Inslee of Washington state, Anna Eshoo of California and Rick Boucher of Virginia, would create a 'Net neutrality law banning phone and cable companies from charging Web sites for faster data transmission, or blocking their online competitors' content and services. Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) has introduced a similar bill in the Senate.
The four Democrats' amendment failed, on a vote of 34-22, largely along party lines, when the House Energy and Commerce Committee approved a wide-ranging telecom reform bill last week.
The FCC voted to deregulate DSL providers in August 2005, and backers of a 'Net neutrality law say broadband providers could now charge their competitors Internet tolls and slow down the content of those who don't pay.
"We cannot allow telecommunications companies to hijack the Internet," Inslee said in a statement. "After all, the beauty of the Internet is its open architecture."
Public Knowledge, a group advocating for consumer rights online, praised the new House bill. "[The] legislation recognizes that the cable and telephone companies are threatening to take over the Internet, and that strong nondiscrimination policies are needed to prevent them from limiting consumer choice and favoring their own content and services," Public Knowledge President Gigi Sohn said in an e-mail.
Broadband providers have repeatedly said they will not block or impair their customers' access to competing Web content or services, although some have talked about charging Web sites extra for a faster tier of service.
The House Democrats' bill comes a day after Senators Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) and Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) introduced a telecom reform bill similar in some ways to the one that passed the House Energy and Commerce Committee and awaits action on the House floor.
Like the House bill, the Senate bill would streamline the franchising requirements for telecom carriers looking to offer Internet-based television services in competition with cable providers. The Stevens bill would also require the use of a broadcast flag anticopying system to protect digital video broadcasts, and it would require cities considering municipally run wireless broadband networks to first allow private providers to bid on the project.
While the House bill endorses general net neutrality goals, the Senate bill would only instruct the FCC to study whether a net neutrality law is needed. Net neutrality advocates said the Senate bill fails to protect U.S. consumers against broadband providers that want to block or slow competing content or services.
But Randolph May, a senior fellow and director of communications policy at conservative think tank the Progress and Freedom Foundation, praised the Stevens bill for not mandating net neutrality rules. "Especially in light of the fact that presently there are no identified consumer harms that need remedying, this 'study first, mandate later' approach is much to be commended," May wrote in his blog.
Why do we need a law for this, if I'm paying let's say comcast for Internet service and I want to view content, say a video from Verizon, if they slow down my connection I'm going to switch providers and go to someone who dosen't screw with he service I'm paying for, consumer demand will drive business to the providers that don't slow the service they're paying for. Am I missing something?
Why do we need a law for this, if I'm paying let's say comcast for Internet service and I want to view content, say a video from Verizon, if they slow down my connection I'm going to switch providers and go to someone who dosen't screw with he service I'm paying for, consumer demand will drive business to the providers that don't slow the service they're paying for. Am I missing something?
I'm under the impression that it's not going to slow your connect.
For example, if you're going to download a video from googles site...verizon (the ISP) will get to charge google for bandwidth use.
Why do we need a law for this, if I'm paying let's say comcast for Internet service and I want to view content, say a video from Verizon, if they slow down my connection I'm going to switch providers and go to someone who dosen't screw with he service I'm paying for, consumer demand will drive business to the providers that don't slow the service they're paying for. Am I missing something?
I'm under the impression that it's not going to slow your connect.
For example, if you're going to download a video from googles site...verizon (the ISP) will get to charge google for bandwidth use.
This is the part I'm refering to;
"While the House bill endorses general net neutrality goals, the Senate bill would only instruct the FCC to study whether a net neutrality law is needed. Net neutrality advocates said the Senate bill fails to protect U.S. consumers against broadband providers that want to block or slow competing content or services."
Why do we need a law for this, if I'm paying let's say comcast for Internet service and I want to view content, say a video from Verizon, if they slow down my connection I'm going to switch providers and go to someone who dosen't screw with he service I'm paying for, consumer demand will drive business to the providers that don't slow the service they're paying for. Am I missing something?
I'm under the impression that it's not going to slow your connect.
For example, if you're going to download a video from googles site...verizon (the ISP) will get to charge google for bandwidth use.
This is the part I'm refering to;
"While the House bill endorses general net neutrality goals, the Senate bill would only instruct the FCC to study whether a net neutrality law is needed. Net neutrality advocates said the Senate bill fails to protect U.S. consumers against broadband providers that want to block or slow competing content or services."
Exactly. How I understand it....
Let's say 80% of Verizon ISP users download videos from videos.google.com, Verizon could inturn slow the end users connection to that content because it uses more of the ISP's bandwidth then say jabber.com *OR* the ISP can say to google.com that they use "x" amount of the ISP's bandwidth so they must pay the ISP "x" amount of dollars to retain the bandwidth they currently have.
The above legislature proposed by Democrats would put a stop to this. The first article outlines what the ISP's want to do to certain sites.
