Senator To AT&T: You Don’t Own The Net
I have mixed feelings about this one…
AT&T, Verizon and other telcos have been warning that they’re going to demand money from Google and other sites if those sites want adequate bandwidth. But now a senator is proposing to ban the practice, and is standing up to the telcos, who are acting more like a cybermafia than legitimate businesses.
If “telco X” builds a network, they should have every right to do whatever they want with it, including charging people for connecting to it. The Internet, however, is not a single network owned by any one company. If that same company X connected their network to the Internet and allowed any traffic through, they shouldn’t be able to charge people or companies a tax for crossing that network. Since packet-based networks such as the internet are all automatic, there’s no easy way for a company like Google to avoid certain networks and stick with free networks on the Internet. The packet simply jumps from router to router to eventually find it’s way.
The technology certainly exists for telco X to inspect every packet, and if it comes from a certain IP (owned by Google, for example), it could count them up and send a bill at the end of the month. If telco X decided they wanted to charge people in this way, shouldn’t there be some warning before the packet is allowed on their network?
Here’s where it turns from black & white to a shade of grey. Many telcos want to be able to have tiered service on their network. Anyone can use their network for free, just as they do today. However, if you want “extra speed or bandwidth”, you have to pay. What this really means is that everyone will have sub-standard quality, while those who can afford it and are willing to pay will get preferred access. While I don’t see anything wrong with this on the surface, it’s definitely not good for consumers, or for the Internet in general.
Is more regulation the answer? Senator Wyden’s new legislation basically says that it would be illegal for telcos to charge companies for faster delivery or to favor some content providers over others. The telco’s general response is that a bill like that would cripple investment into building & improving networks. I’m not sure I buy that.
March 4th, 2006 at 1:51 am
what this sounds like is a plan to double-dip.
you pay your telco for internet access, in turn, they provide you a connection to the rest of the internet. your company, along with mine, also pay for that same service.
for example, google also pays their telco(s) for their (many) connection(s) to the internet(s.)
he who provides a faster and more reliable connection gets the contract. always has. always will. for the telcos to come in and double-dip for service like this is retarded.
when middle-point providers start charging for more for “extra bandwidth” through the middle, then endpoint providers will start routing around them. middle-point providers have a vested interest in keeping those connections like they are today.
each access provider wins, as they provide connectivity for different end users, different middle-points, and different content providers.
granted, i’m thinking of the endpoints of the internet. the ends justify the means/middle. end-users and customers win. content providers win.