Traffic slow? Too bad, pay us more and we'll fix it.
So the big telecom companies are trying to assram through some legislation that basically would specifically allow them to shape network traffic (i.e. give priority to some traffic over others) based on how much the web site (likely targets are Yahoo!, Myspace, Google Video, Amazon, etc., the biggies) has paid them for their bandwidth. By paying more for their service, their traffic will be sent more quickly than those who are paying less. IOW, if there's four other people in your neighborhood watching Google Video, and you're trying to download a grant proposal form .PDF from a non-profit, your ass is out of luck until some bandwidth frees up.
Right now this does happen, but not intentionally. Every packet (bit of Internet information) has an equal chance at being sent from point A to point B. Under the proposed scheme, if A has paid more than B, A's traffic gets sent while B's traffic just sits there.
"Gee, that's a nice .com business you've built up there, it'd be a shame if anything ....'appened to it.." That's right! It's a Protection racket! The organizations with all the power (in this case, the fiber and copper that carry the Internet's traffic) are demanding money from businesses in return for not destroying them. It also means that unless you've got the cash to effectively bribe them with, your startup is doomed to obscurity and failure.
What does ths mean, practically? It means that 1) the big bandwidth providers, namely telcos and cable companies, get to extort more money from sites on pain of having their traffic shitcanned, and similarly, 2) they get to choose what companies can succeed, instead of the consumer making their choice based on silly things like customer service and/or value.
You might be thinking that "well gee, if they want to pay a premium for premium service, what's wrong with that?" If this were any other medium, I'd agree with you. But previously, companies would pay more money for more bandwidth, and the usual economies of scale would apply (if you buy in larger quantities, you'd get a better price per unit, etc.). Under the new proposal, you'd still be paying for that bandwidth, but then paying more to make your bandwidth more important than the other guy's. It's kind of like the carpool lane; you get access to a faster lane if you meet some requirements, like carrying several people or driving a hybrid. But the difference is, you'd have to pay an extra toll to drive in that lane, meaning the rich could get around that much faster, making it that much harder for the less rich to do what they need to do. Replace cars with Internet traffic, and you've got the idea.
Doesn't really seem fair, does it. Companies already pay for bandwidth, as do consumers. But double-dipping isn't enough apparently, now they want to triple-dip. Apparently they've learned that there's still some money out there that isn't in their pockets (those damn consumers! How did our money get in their checking accounts?) and of course, they can't allow that!
Tell your congresscritter that this is bullshit (but don't use that word, please be polite.) Hopefully there will be enough of them that haven't completely handed over the titles to their souls to big business to make a difference.
Right now this does happen, but not intentionally. Every packet (bit of Internet information) has an equal chance at being sent from point A to point B. Under the proposed scheme, if A has paid more than B, A's traffic gets sent while B's traffic just sits there.
"Gee, that's a nice .com business you've built up there, it'd be a shame if anything ....'appened to it.." That's right! It's a Protection racket! The organizations with all the power (in this case, the fiber and copper that carry the Internet's traffic) are demanding money from businesses in return for not destroying them. It also means that unless you've got the cash to effectively bribe them with, your startup is doomed to obscurity and failure.
What does ths mean, practically? It means that 1) the big bandwidth providers, namely telcos and cable companies, get to extort more money from sites on pain of having their traffic shitcanned, and similarly, 2) they get to choose what companies can succeed, instead of the consumer making their choice based on silly things like customer service and/or value.
You might be thinking that "well gee, if they want to pay a premium for premium service, what's wrong with that?" If this were any other medium, I'd agree with you. But previously, companies would pay more money for more bandwidth, and the usual economies of scale would apply (if you buy in larger quantities, you'd get a better price per unit, etc.). Under the new proposal, you'd still be paying for that bandwidth, but then paying more to make your bandwidth more important than the other guy's. It's kind of like the carpool lane; you get access to a faster lane if you meet some requirements, like carrying several people or driving a hybrid. But the difference is, you'd have to pay an extra toll to drive in that lane, meaning the rich could get around that much faster, making it that much harder for the less rich to do what they need to do. Replace cars with Internet traffic, and you've got the idea.
Doesn't really seem fair, does it. Companies already pay for bandwidth, as do consumers. But double-dipping isn't enough apparently, now they want to triple-dip. Apparently they've learned that there's still some money out there that isn't in their pockets (those damn consumers! How did our money get in their checking accounts?) and of course, they can't allow that!
Tell your congresscritter that this is bullshit (but don't use that word, please be polite.) Hopefully there will be enough of them that haven't completely handed over the titles to their souls to big business to make a difference.
posted by Zach Burnham at 7:03 PM (click for permalink)
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home