Senator To AT&T: You Don't Own The Net

[DigitalDuality]

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.

Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon today introduced legslation that would ban network operators from charging sites for extra bandwidth. The law would also ban the practice of favoring some content providers over others. That, according to the New York Times.

Other Congressman are kowtowing to the telcos because the telcos are big campaign contributors. They'd let the telcos do what they want, and turn the Internet into their own private network.

The Wyden bill, called the Internet Non-Discrimination Act of 2006, faces tough sledding. Money talks, and the telcos are doing a lot of talking.

In addition, the FCC has made it clear it won't take any action on the matter, so we can't look to them for help.

So if you care about the future of the Internet, let your Congressmen know about it -- tell them to support Wyden's bill.

http://www.networkingpipeline.com/blog/archives/2006/03/senator_to_att.html

Get Your Senator contact Info Here.
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

[xequence]

That senator did a good job.

The ISPs shouldent need any money from google. They pay for servers and access to the net, why pay more?

[Kvark]

Wait, if I understand this correctly the ISPs are going to sell the same bandwidth to the websites that they already sold to the home users... That won't work, you can't sell the same thing to two different buyers. If the ISPs sell the bandwidth to home users then they better let the home users use the bandwidth they bought to visist any sites they wish. If the ISPs sell the bandwidth to the websites instead then they better pay the home users for the right to dictate and sell their personal surfing habbits. If the ISPs sell it to both, then both should sue them.

[ygarl]

Not to mention - and I sometimes have to spell it out for my American friends - AMERICA DOES NOT OWN THE INTERNET!

America may have a lot of users, but the vast majority of European (and China is FAR higher) countries have a much higher per-capita use of the internet. In Sweden it is something like 80% of people have access to the internet at home.
In the US, only about half the people even have PCs...

If the US simply disconnected the internet from the rest of the world, companies like AT&T would find the internet still alive and well elsewhere.

[FoxLogic]

I've already contacted.

I may be from Nebraska, but this effects everyone and no matter how small I may seem, I still voiced this to Senator Chuck Hagel.

[bonzodog]

I think all that would simply happen is that most sites would relocate outside the states, then cut the US traffic off by banning IP ranges, and I suspect that the EU courts would rule the US telco's actions illegal, and sever the backbone between the states and the rest of the world. After all, one of the Major nodes of the net is in Switzerland, and is french owned. I suspect that the EU would dearly love to cut off the US like this.

Also, I suspect that once the telcos have been ruled to be acting illegaly by the EU court, then no EU based site would pay the telcos, and would basically give the US government inc. , the big finger.

[DigitalDuality]

For more on this issue see :

The End of the Internet (as we've come to know it)
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060213/chester

It's a far more in depth article about the issue in the states (US).

[DigitalDuality]

Not to mention - and I sometimes have to spell it out for my American friends - AMERICA DOES NOT OWN THE INTERNET!

America may have a lot of users, but the vast majority of European (and China is FAR higher) countries have a much higher per-capita use of the internet. In Sweden it is something like 80% of people have access to the internet at home.
In the US, only about half the people even have PCs...

If the US simply disconnected the internet from the rest of the world, companies like AT&T would find the internet still alive and well elsewhere.

Unfortunately. We do.

ICANN DNS naming, IP allocation, is in the control of the US Government. Laws we make here in the US affect the world on these issues and it's quite sad. If our government makes a law concerning the web, or if the FCC does.. it will have worldwide effects. If american companies decide to do something like this, it will as well.

THe US government will fight tooth and nail to ensure that our government keeps control over the ICANN servers as well. There's been proposals for a newly created worldwide group that's neutral to take them, there's been a big push for the UN to take them (which dominated american politics.. most americans hate the UN..sometimes with good reason, others b/c they tout a party line).

This is quite disturbing when you consider.. 80% of Brazil does their taxes through a system, we control here in the US. Not to mention all the other issues from hundreds of nations across the globe.

[Stormy Eyes]

There's been proposals for a newly created worldwide group that's neutral to take them, there's been a big push for the UN to take them (which dominated american politics.. most americans hate the UN..sometimes with good reason, others b/c they tout a party line).

The UN can't even stop genocides in Africa; you expect me to trust that corrupt crew of sycophants to manage the internet?

[DigitalDuality]

I'm not one to get in a US vs UN arguement. All governments, including the UN, EU, US, any nation in africa, asia, latin america, are corrupt. and there's no such thing as an efficient government.

Also, stopping a genocide, is a bit more difficult than managing internet servers. Especially considering the situation as a whole. There's a scene in Hotel Rwanda, that i think sums it up perfectly.

Nick Notle plays a frustrated UN worker, who truly cares, who is mad at the world..b/c Europe won't help, the US won't help, the UN does a half assed job. He looks at his friend, an african hotel manager and says "You're not even ni99ers". No one even cares enough to hate them. No one cares enough to even see it on their nightly news.

The world simply doesn't care about africa b/c there's no economic advantage for them doing so. In the eyes of business, and governmental oppurtunity, there' no motivation for help. Our media barely even covers it. and the money and resources that go to aid the haulting of the atrocities, is nothing compared to most major systems we debate at election time.

I think the UN is corrupt, and inefficient, and may not even be the answer to the managine main internet servers. But one nation does not deserve control of it either. And neither does a single private entity. An international body of some sort, whether newly created, or one already established, would best suit it, IMHO.

[bonzodog]

So how would the net be affected if the EU ordered the backbone be severed, or all EU sites not to pay the US telcos, and ruled the US law inapplicable and illegal in the EU?

[DigitalDuality]

The problem you would see is that nations (China is currently in the process of doing this) would start creating their own nationwide internets so to speak.

Having multiple top level DNS servers, in multiple "internet" networks such as this would create huge interoperability issues. And issues surrounding global commerce and global communication would be increasingly difficult, and increasingly expensive.

So if a nation (such as china) decides "screw you americans.. we'll do it our way".. You'll begin to see what we think of as the internet now, crumble.

[trorion]

AT&T doesn't own the internet. They own the high speed fiber optic lines that all of the traffic of the internet travels over. Since deregulation has taken hold in the industry and AT&T is no longer guaranteed a profit by the government they can charge what they want for use of those lines.

Don't want to pay AT&T? Fine. Put in your own lines. AT&T isn't trying to charge for the internet. They are trying to charge for use of the massive infrastructure that they have installed and they own.

Frankly this is a good thing. If the big Telco's can't build a profit out of their hard lines then they will go out of business. Since they couldn't make a profit out of the lines then it's likely that:
The lines are controled by the government -> government sets up monopoly to run lines -> the old ma-bell model.

How do YOU want the companies that own the infrastructure that the internet runs on to make a profit?

[bonzodog]

AT & T don't own any lines in europe.

[DigitalDuality]

how much do you think Google pays to ISPs per month? Or Amazon? Or Ebay? or Myspace? Or Yahoo? (top 5 internet websites according to Alexa). Do you have any idea?

Now think of the thousands of customers, who also pay for their 56k, DSL, and cable connections per month?

These companies make plenty of profit off the backs on content providers and the consumers accessing said content.

They're just trying to double dip and milk it for all its worth. And at the cost of who? All of us. Content providers and menial consumer alike.

[trorion]

AT & T don't own any lines in europe.
Absolutely incorrect but I won't quibble.

The Telco's want to charge for use of the infrastructure. It's a legitimate charge.

The Telco's used to be able to subsidize the infrastructure and justify it because it was heavily used by their own profit driven phone systems. Now internet telephony is encroaching on that and the telco's need to find a new model.

There is a massive misconception that all these internet services should be free. Telco's now have the right to make a profit. AT&T recently started earning positive profits again after years of losses. If they can't maintain profitability then eventually they go bankrupt. If other companies are prohibited from making profits of the lines then nobody will pick them up.

I don't know what Google pays for their use of the infrastructure but it's either them or you. Someone has to pay for the maintenance of the lines. Your options in general are: government (via taxation), you (through increased access fees) or the content providers (through lease expenses).

[ygarl]

Unfortunately. We do.

ICANN DNS naming, IP allocation, is in the control of the US Government. Laws we make here in the US affect the world on these issues and it's quite sad. If our government makes a law concerning the web, or if the FCC does.. it will have worldwide effects. If american companies decide to do something like this, it will as well.

THe US government will fight tooth and nail to ensure that our government keeps control over the ICANN servers as well. There's been proposals for a newly created worldwide group that's neutral to take them, there's been a big push for the UN to take them (which dominated american politics.. most americans hate the UN..sometimes with good reason, others b/c they tout a party line).

This is quite disturbing when you consider.. 80% of Brazil does their taxes through a system, we control here in the US. Not to mention all the other issues from hundreds of nations across the globe.

<yawn>....

Put up a new DNS system and registration (after duplicating the non-US addresses) and Bob's your Uncle...

Fiat accompli.
There are an awful lot of internet nodes in Europe in .nl and .se areas... also .uk and .de.
It wouldn't take much to just <snip> and the rest of the world might be more inclined to trust an European Union-run replacemant of ICANN than the US one. And the EU is more likely to allow the UN a say in its running as well.

Would the US be interested in an EU equiv of ICANN?

[Bragador]

Who's to say that in the future, people wont be using wireless anyway ? Think about it. Everyone buys something to transmit data to their neighbors which can transport data to other neighbors etc etc etc.

You have an internet paid by and for the people.

[Kvark]

There is a massive misconception that all these internet services should be free.
Those who run web servers that sites are hosted on pays for bandwidth. Those who surf pays for bandwidth. Everyone who needs bandwidth already pays for it. Which group is it that doesn't pay for it and have a massive misconception that bandwidth should be free?

From my understanding we are talkning about if ISPs should control which websites their home users are allowed to visit at the connection speed the home users already payed for. Which would mean your ISP dictates your surfing habits. But I propably missunderstood something cause this sounds insane.


Who's to say that in the future, people wont be using wireless anyway ? Think about it. Everyone buys something to transmit data to their neighbors which can transport data to other neighbors etc etc etc.

You have an internet paid by and for the people.
A packet would have to be passed on by a chain of hundreds of neighbors just to get to the other end of the city. The latency of hundreds of hops would be worse then dail up.

[trorion]

From my understanding we are talkning about if ISPs should control which websites their home users are allowed to visit at the connection speed the home users already payed for. Which would mean your ISP dictates your surfing habits. But I propably missunderstood something cause this sounds insane.
The proposition is to NOT allow the infrastructure owners (telco's) to tell the content providers (googles): Hey, your end users (joe blow who is googling "stupid forum arguments") are using way more of our bandwidth than other web pages so if you want them to have quick responses you need to pay us $x. Otherwise we are going to restrict the total per second bandwidth that you get.

There are other options for the Telco's. I just don't think it's right to say that the government can tell the Telco's that they are now in a competitive market then say they can't change their pricing.

[Bragador]

A packet would have to be passed on by a chain of hundreds of neighbors just to get to the other end of the city. The latency of hundreds of hops would be worse then dail up.

Ah yes.

I forgot about that.

I humbly bow down.

Then what about not for profit community ineternet centers? The internet distributor would be owned by the city and would be a not for profit organization. Then this central server would communicate with other cities. That could be done and would grealty reduce the latency. In other words, make the internet a not for profit organization. Innovation would still be possible because improvments and research would still be not for profit goals.

[Kvark]

The proposition is to NOT allow the infrastructure owners (telco's) to tell the content providers (googles): Hey, your end users (joe blow who is googling "stupid forum arguments") are using way more of our bandwidth than other web pages so if you want them to have quick responses you need to pay us $x. Otherwise we are going to restrict the total per second bandwidth that you get.

There are other options for the Telco's. I just don't think it's right to say that the government can tell the Telco's that they are now in a competitive market then say they can't change their pricing.
In other words the same thing as if the subway company would count the trademarks on shopping bags and tell the most popular stores "Hey your shoppers take up too much space on our trains. You have to pay us for the shoppers we bring you with our trains. Otherwise we won't let people with your bags on our trains during rush hour even if those people have payed for tickets. Then people will have to shop at other stores that do pay us.". ...But if I payed for a ticket then it's none of the subway company's business which store i have been shopping at and they better just let me on the train that I bought a ticket to.

[DigitalDuality]

I think people here don't understand why this is happening.


These ISPs have seen Google, Yahoo, Ebay, Amazon, and to a degree.. even MS blossom online. The content providers are making MORE money than the ISPs, and that doesn't settle well.

If I run an ISP, and i can charge more (to the content provider or customer) for access to a certain site, or .. i'll just happen to slow all consumer traffic to it so it'll be worse than a 56k crawl, now I can provide similar content at maximum speeds. Making me both an ISP and content provider.

In other words, this reeks of anti-competitive B.S.

You want to see a corporate war (not literal).. wait to see if a bill like this doesn't pass.

All these content providers and ISPs are going to go after each others throats. AT&T might think they're big and bad, but i'd hate to be the one that pissed off Google, MS, and Yahoo all at once.

[bonzodog]

The big point here is that any law passed in the US DOES NOT APPLY outside it's borders. ANY attempt to use civil suits against EU telcos/site owners/ISP's will be repelled by cutting the US off from the EU over the backbone. I'm sorry, but it seems that anything like this will only alienate the US from the EU which would be sad. We can create our own IP/DNS regulator over here, and I'm fairly sure it has already been discussed as the EU is not happy with ICANN, and are looking at splitting and creating their own regulators using a different set of IP addresses, or IPv6.

[DigitalDuality]

I think that.. would be a disaster. It'd be incredibly sad if it came to that.

[trorion]

We can create our own IP/DNS regulator over here, and I'm fairly sure it has already been discussed as the EU is not happy with ICANN, and are looking at splitting and creating their own regulators using a different set of IP addresses, or IPv6.
Don't have to worry about if they will be subject to the expenses. Just charge to access the US network for traffic coming in. If Google doesn't like supplementing the backbone they can restrict non-US queries from hitting US servers.

The EU breaking away from the ICANN...I wonder if this would really upset US regulators at all. I get 30-50 emails a week about buying prescription drugs or pictures of children or what not from Russian IP's which can't be prosecuted by the US. The number of inheritance scams from Africa has increased every year; can't prosecute.

The idea that this is an IP provider trying to gouge the content providers is laughable. This is the infrastructure providers trying to get enough money to pay for the maintenance and installation of additional bandwidth.

If the government wants to take over the infrastructure then they should take it over. Don't regulate the industry out of expansion by saying the infrastructure owners can't make money. If they get out of hand then there will be a new form of infrastructure put in place (ex. direct TV as cable has become more expensive).

Comparing it to the subway charging more for riders...lets compare it instead to the government privatizing the interstate system and cutting off funds from gas tax. Now the interstate system can either start charging per car or they can create a model where if a city wants on/off ramps then the city needs to pay $x + $y/1000 cars that uses the on/off ramp. So...you can pay more for your ISP (pay per bandwidth) or you can have google pay for it. Which do you want? Oh wait...you want the government to take over the internet and decide what the pricing model should be.

[DigitalDuality]

There's no need for government to "take over". Where did anyone say bout them taking over.

It's merely not allowing them to double dip, and practice anti-competitive b.s.

But it doesn't suprise me AT&T is leading the way on this.

They rolled over and helped the National Security Agency execute illegal warrantless wiretaps against American citizens.
http://www.boingboing.net/2006/01/31/eff_suing_att_for_he.html

Not to mention the oh-so-ethical practice of allowing a technology to saturate the market and THEN start charging royalties to apple.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,1923218,00.asp

They've been greedy as hell. I hope the government ends up busting them up again.

Oh and don't let me forget Comcast:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/ip-telephony/index.php?p=938

Who blocked out VoIP from Vonage and Skype, as the debuted their own VoIP service.

[FoxLogic]

Lets say all this does happen and we end up no internet or very expensive internet bills. What I would do, leave the country. Move to some place that still has internet that isn't controled by AT&T, Verizon and Bell South.

[BoyOfDestiny]

BellSouth considers pay-per-byte broadband
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060303-6311.html

Worst case, I'll use a text browser, and keep using my proxy to block loading of bad images... :)

Anyway, don't worry people, it's just these large corps being greedy as usual. This would seriously **** people off... Once there is some network neutrality legislation, all this crap will go away. Or a lot of lawsuits. Whatever comes first. Although, I do like what the article suggests (since it's the first thing I thought of when I read the title) is free WiFi... ;)

EDIT: Neat, didn't know there were that many groups interested in ruining the net.

http://www.democraticmedia.org/news/marketwatch/Infranet.html

Screw 'em!

[Bragador]

If they screw up the net it will be reborn someday.

Local BBS servers will spring here and there and history will repeat itself.

I strongly hope internet service providers will be not for profit organizations in the future.

[l0c0dantes]

Let me Make sure I understand this before I say my bit

1.)ATT + telecom compnies built all sorts of lines and whatnot.
2.)Internet makes it big and is constantly using the lines that telecoms built
3.)Telecoms see this and wants to turn a profit, so they want to charge access to them lines.

Now, That means, the big problem is the fact that ATT owns the lines. They spend thier money to take care of the lines. However, what about WiFi? In places like Spokane Washington they have a Hot spot about 100 city blocks big. And it doesnt use the lines that ATT has built.

It might have sufered a slight setback from the supreme court (it says states can deny cities WiFi if they want) but, WiFi is too useful to turn down.

[DigitalDuality]

WiFi is just a short distance wireless protocol. All those recievers for the wifi signals, what do you think those are attached to?

[BoyOfDestiny]

WiFi is just a short distance wireless protocol. All those recievers for the wifi signals, what do you think those are attached to?

Things change.

http://www.wimaxforum.org/home/

[l0c0dantes]

Sorry if I wasn't clear enough in my first post. The Wifi Hotspot is 100 sq city blocks big. They have figgured a way to turn wifi from Small scale to big scale.

What I envison happening is The internet companies will just put a Transmitter (like a radio tower) Up where they are, and just pump the stuff out there.

Heres an article that will (hopefully) make things clearer

http://www.time.com/time/2004/wireless/story.html

[trorion]

As long as google switches to all wi-fi and doesn't use AT&T's lines then AT&T can't charge them for their huge bandwidth usage.

You see, technology is already advancing and if AT&T makes it more attractive to advance to a more wireless universal network because they start charging extra for the wired network...

Incidentally, this has happened over and over in history where a company began charging increasing costs so the market created a better alternative. Don't underestimate ingenuity or the ability of people to be ultra cheap.

[DigitalDuality]

AT&T's/Verizon's lines will of course be used to link these wifi networks. There's no getting around it.

And now you're lookin at the AT&T and Bellsouth merger.. AND the Cingular merger..