December 21, 2005 4:00 AM PST

Playing favorites on the Net?

(continued from previous page)

A similar bill proposed in July by Sen. John Ensign, a Nevada Republican, refers more directly to network neutrality by saying that broadband providers "shall not willfully and knowingly block access" to content. Amazon, however, said such provisions don't go far enough.

SBC, which recently purchased AT&T, created an uproar in the Net world last month with a bold pronouncement: The Googles, Microsofts and Vonages of the world shouldn't expect to freeload off its network.

"I ain't going to let them do that because we have spent this capital and we have to have a return on it," Ed Whitacre, CEO of the newly merged AT&T and SBC, told BusinessWeek magazine in a widely cited interview.

Charging subscribers higher prices for greater connection speeds is nothing new among Internet service providers. Most of the Bells, for instance, now offer tiered DSL plans that start in the $15 range for the slowest download speeds.

"We have always said that if they want to have, say, a bronze, silver, gold level of Internet access, essentially charging more for more bits...that's fine."
--Paul Misener, vice president for global public policy, Amazon

"It's similar to paying more to get an overnight package from FedEX or UPS vs. a lesser amount for three- or four-day delivery," said Joe Chandler, a BellSouth representative.

"We have always said that if they want to have, say, a bronze, silver, gold level of Internet access, essentially charging more for more bits...that's fine," said Amazon's Misener.

It's the idea of "impairing" access to content or services that makes companies like Amazon nervous. Misener said he could imagine "discreet" approaches in which a service provider could, for example, return a 404 page-not-found error for every 15th Web hit at a site that doesn't get premium treatment: "It's easy to do, and who is going to be blamed for it? Certainly not the intermediary but the end site."

"We are pleased that the network operators are investing in technology and innovation, and we are proud partners with them in offering content and services to the public," Paul Mitchell, an executive in Microsoft's TV division, told a House committee last month. "We just think that other companies should continue to be able to offer Internet content and services as well."

Not only e-commerce companies are voicing alarm over what they say is a lack of legal protections favoring network neutrality.

Trade association Comptel and about 60 representatives from member companies--including Internet service providers, VoIP sellers, and telephone companies that compete for customers with the Bells--signed a letter earlier this month voicing dissatisfaction with the draft House legislation.

The draft bill will sanction "Internet gatekeepers," wrote Comptel President Earl Comstock. He added: "Allowing this proposed bill to advance any further will undermine the Internet and pave the way for the Bell companies to re-monopolize the nation's communications networks."

No "significant evidence" of problem
Stalling any attempt to craft broad network neutrality rules is the fact that, despite small-scale incidents like Madison River, problems remain mostly theoretical.

FCC Chairman Kevin Martin told a roomful of communications company executives last week that his agency was hesitant to adopt formal Net neutrality rules because "there hasn't been significant evidence of a problem."

A study published by the free-market advocacy group Cato Institute in 2003 says that federal intervention is unwise and would infringe on property rights and limit business models. So did a paper by Christopher Yoo of Vanderbilt University law school. A counterargument (click here for PDF) by law professors Tim Wu and Lawrence Lessig, on the other hand, says the FCC should ensure the Internet remains as neutral toward applications as the electrical power grid.

When it approved the megamergers of SBC with AT&T and Verizon with MCI in late October, the FCC required both companies to adhere to a network neutrality policy for two years following the closing date of the mergers. Meanwhile, broadband companies have vowed for years that they're not interested in preventing access to legal content.

Aside from the Madison River case, examples are scarce. Missouri-based VoIP provider Nuvio has encountered "some issues" with broadband providers physically blocking Port 5060, the most common carrier of Net phone calls, but the company has managed to settle those complaints easily without turning to the FCC, said CEO Jason Talley.

Talley said he worries that broadband providers will instead take up filtering on "a more intelligent level," monitoring packets of information and then prioritizing or degrading certain content as they please. "Typically customers call in and complain about quality if they have problems like that," he said. "You try to fix it; you try to work with them on that. But at the end of the day, you either figure it out, or the customer cancels."

Even Amazon's Misener acknowledged that outright blocking of sites wasn't a problem now, and would not likely become one in the future.

But without legislative intervention, there's reason to fear that Net surfers may find a more restricted Web, Misener said: "What Mr. Whitacre's interview revealed was, I think he said two very distinct things. One is that the service providers have market power...and part two was, we intend to use it."

Previous page
Page 1 | 2

See more CNET content tagged:
broadband provider, file-swapping, Amazon.com Inc., BellSouth Corp., e-commerce

25 comments

Join the conversation!
Add your comment
Never Happen
The broadband companies would loose thousands of customers. Go ahead and try&
Posted by (2 comments )
Reply Link Flag
I wish that were true
The problem is, to whom would we turn if we want to leave? A huge chunk of America does not have any choices in broadband providers. And even those of us who do might lose out. I can get cable and DSL, but what happens when both of those providers choose to do the same thing? I am hosed, as I have no realistic alternative.

I think our best hope is that this may eventually spur alternative providers, such as powerline and WiMax-based providers. This is not going to be fun.
Posted by curtiscarmack (20 comments )
Link Flag
The "principle" is a done deal.
Congress and the courts have already decided that it is legal for vendors to pay merchants for preferential treatment. Coke & Pepsi each pay supermarkets for 45% of their avialble soft drink shelf space, thus limiting all other soft drink companies to just 10% of the shelf space. Has everyone stopped shopping the supermarkets? The big three record labels pay to have their artists aired over the satellite downlinks to commercial radio stations--it's NOT payola if they report it to the IRS. Has everyone stopped listening to commercial radio?
Seems the major differences between free enterprise and capitalism become more apparent as time goes by with the big guys allowed to cut deals to prevent little guys from becoming successful. Congress and the courts, being owned by the large corporations, have therefore "deregulated" most industries, allowing consumers to be shorn daily.
There is one slight chance the large providers of Internet pipe may think better of this. In the past, they have claimed immunity from liability for various digital scoundrels, schemes, & scams because they had no control over content due to their lack of ability to monitor such content. If they do this thing, they will, in affect, be monitoring content, thus opening themselves up to liability for the content. In fact, their proposition itself discloses this as a likelyhood.
Come on, all you litigators! Stop drooling and get your fingers busy typing those briefs!
Posted by El Kabong (100 comments )
Link Flag
A conflict of interests
There's a conflict of interests between providing connectivity and providing content, and that requires regulation. One extreme solution is not allowing one supplier to supply both. A less extreme solution would require a supplier to define the border between the two and would set standards. An ISP that advertises that it sells "internet access" should be required to ensure that the bandwidth it says is "internet access" would be used just for that, and not confiscated for pushing its content. If an ISP is allowed to provide content at a higher priority than general internet access, it should be required to set a minimal bandwidth reserved for internet connectivity that is at least as high as what's advertised.
Posted by hadaso (468 comments )
Reply Link Flag
The Greed
These telecoms and internet providers are really unbelievable. As if their internet services weren't expensive enough. We pay more for internet services in the U.S. than people do in Japan. And, Japanese get 2-3 times the speed we get here.

These people are just greedy and scared of competition. As if internet is the only thing that travels through their networks.

Let me see, if I want DSL, I have to deal with the telephone company, which just like cable have neighborhoods, and sometimes towns, monopolized by their services. So, one way or another, they'll try to push me into using their other services. So, they always win. Why the whining??? Money. They can't handle that King Google and Prince Yahoo have so much control over the internet. So, telecoms want to be the cops. They want to be "distators" and "Ramsom holders."

Want to use the internet at a good speed "pay me a ransom" and then we'll talk. Isn't this black mailing.???
Posted by Dead Soulman (245 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Antitrust abuse
What it is we could call antitrust abuse. If they really want to be deregulated, then let's end local cable and telco monopolies. Let anyone provide service who wants to. It won't be easy to overcome the incumbents' built-in subscriber base, but if they do enough stupid things like this, then competitors will use cheaper, newer technology (like WiMax) to reach fed-up customers. It's too hard to do this right now with the incredible thicket of local, state, and federal regulations that surround local service provider monopolies.
Posted by curtiscarmack (20 comments )
Link Flag
Free market, my ass...
They want guaranteed profits and a captive audience just like the old days. Look to Korea, Japan, Singapore, China, India, etc for innovation and a fast internet experience. America has been carved up by special interests. And they ain't so special.
Posted by ordaj (338 comments )
Reply Link Flag
For a country...
...who started the internet, the US is really behind in terms of connectivity. And it's not just the internet, but cell phones too. It much easier to get a car here than a good cell phone plan.
Posted by (56 comments )
Reply Link Flag
separating infrastructure from connectivity
In Israel there is one phone company: a monopoly, including DSL. Since they have a monopoly on DSL connectivity (and on dialup connectivity) the regulator does not allow them to provide internet connectivity. There are also several cable TV suppliers, each a monopoly in the parts of the country where they operate (I'm not sure about the exact restriction on them).

So the way it works is that a consumer has to subscribe to either DSL thru the phone company (paid in the phone bill) or to cables access thru a cable TV supplier (paid thru cable TV bill, often with a deal including both network access and cable TV plan) and then the user has to subscribe to (at least) one ISP. The infrastructure provider (DSL or cables) supplies connectivity to the ISP, and the ISP provides access to the Internet. (Actually one can just subscribe to DSL service, and then by going to a certain URL choose any ISP and pay for internet connectivity by the minute, charged thru the phone bill. But in practice consumers subscribe to an ISP which then handles the infrastructure subscription for them at special rates).

It still doesn't solve the conflict of interests problem because ISPs still serve their own content on their local network in addition to internet access, and infrastructure suppliers may also serve their own content on their local network. They are only forbidden to sell direct internet connectivity.
Posted by hadaso (468 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Not good...
I honestly think this is a terrible thing to do. ISP's could very well just start taking over the internet or how its done... say Bellsouth doesn't like phrack.org, so they block it. That goes completely against the principle of the internet, which is to provide a network of information available to EVERYONE with a connection. Freedom of speech anyone?

There are ways to get around this however... hackers will definitely step in against this, and that I look forward to.

^a10
Posted by AimsAlpha (21 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Simple Truth
If you pay for broadband, you are paying for a connection. The providers are just the pipe. But when the begin using valves to control the experience they are moving into another genre of content providing (this might be ok for specific market segments or if they give the pipe away for free).

This means they better be able to control every aspect of the experience (an impossible task) or the lawsuits will make them wish they never started down this path.

The simple truth is that communication companies are scared; they see their base and revenue drying up. This era of technology scares them and they are having a hard time adapting (partially since they never earned a loyal subscriber base. They did rape and pillage our pockets for years while there was no alternative&Sins of the past have come back to plague them) But I regress&

This is just their way of trying to make money from both sides.
They will soon find that greed may not be the solution they seek&
Posted by SimpleTruth (5 comments )
Reply Link Flag
This is moronic
Who is this Barton guy anyway? Is he from the old Soviet Union?

This is so un-American it isn't funny. There is NO WAY your ISP should have control over what websites you have access to and which ones you don't. This is one of the worst ideas I have seen from congress, and that says something given the level of stupidity in Washington.
Posted by R. U. Sirius (745 comments )
Reply Link Flag
The best reason yet
to let local governments provide internet access. The big corporations prove time and time again that they can't be trusted with anything important. They're simply too greedy.
Posted by Michael Grogan (308 comments )
Reply Link Flag
What about VOIP?
So if this does go through can Time Waner Cable deny me acces to my Vonage phone service just so I have to get their digital phone or worse go back to SBC/AT&T?
Posted by jakec (25 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Um...Nope
There was a small-time telco who provided DSL that did just that. They got slapped by the FCC, hard. My ISP better not be messing with my pipe to the internet that I'm paying for.
Posted by Maelstorm (130 comments )
Link Flag
Yet, another...
Example of our f'ed up government and greedy corporations. Any company that tries this will be one more company I will not be doing business with. Period!

Robert
Posted by Heebee Jeebies (632 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Big Brother is Getting Closer
This is not about speed, maybe a little about greed. This is frightening where this is headed.
If we fall for the "newest and best in technology" propaganda we are unlocking our doors and letting Big Brother into our lives. What is after video? A two way monitor where Big Brother will be able to see what we do every minute of the day, except we will not know its happening.
They already have the technology to follow where we are online. Even as a science major it was quite a jolt for me to purchase a brand new computer and have it greet me by name before I even registered Windows. If technology "improves" much more in this direction my computer and cell phone days are over.

Beware
Posted by pjdw (33 comments )
Reply Link Flag
PeerCast and p2p radio... "share the web"
I am not sure if its just some fancy ipmulticast client or what.. hasnt reached critical mass yet.. geeze, ipmulticast clients are over 10 years old now.... I think cisco marketed some ipmulticast features in their boxes a while back.... Its ironic that its nearly impossible to find a free highbitrate live feeds anymore....

just wait until the authorites come knocking on some kids door for letting people watch thir HBO through some windows.....
Posted by (47 comments )
Reply Link Flag
With Microsoft and Google etc. against it...
there is no way that this bill could pass.
Posted by (14 comments )
Reply Link Flag
A couple of words from a Web Developer
For the FCC Chairman:

Let's say you have a big red barn and I'm thinking of building a road right smack in the middle of the Broad Side of it. Now, nobody claims ownership of this barn but the land it lies on is vaguely monitored by the Government.

Now I'm just thinking of building the road here because I see serious potential for the towns clients to get to the business' faster, not to mention a way to curb the business to benefit the shops I own.

The reality of it is that I can't do it yet because I'm not sure of the reprocussions of building that road through the barn. You see I parked the Construction gear outside and now I'm just waiting to see if anybody notices.

Crap, one person noticed and asked me to move my contruction gear. I'll have to park it for now, kinda like ICANN parking the .xxx domain.

Now if I had to stick to strick rules on where I could and could not build that road then the decision to build the road through the barn would be made for me and I'd have to look for other uses for my construction gear. Not to mention that I will now have to think of different way's to generate income to my business (maybe better technology will fix this).

There is no law that tells me that I can't do it and there is no law to tell me that I can. So I'm gonna park my construction equipment until somebody makes a decision. And lets just say the wrong decision and I'm building a road through the Broad Side of you barn!

~Justin
Posted by OneWithTech (196 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Defining "network neutrality" complex? Hardly . . .
Here's a definition for you: A packet is a packet is a packet.

The moment you treat some packets differently (for whatever reason), you violate network neutrality.

What a bunch a maroons . . .
Posted by criticny (5 comments )
Reply Link Flag
just to be clear . . .
That means that:

1) Should "network operators" block spam? Yes. ISPs CAN block spam, because they block it AFTER RECEIPT of the email by the mail server.

2) Should network operators be able to stop viruses? Well, if those "network operators" are engaging is some kind of packet inspection to do so, then NO. However, if they're doing it at the receiving end of a transmission, then, well, YES.

3) Should large p2p users have their bandwidth curbed? Well . . . that's a BANDWIDTH issue, not a network neutrality issue.

4) Should people like Brian Dietz stop preying on the technical naivety of the public? EMPHATICALLY YES.

whew . . . that's a load off.
Posted by criticny (5 comments )
Link Flag
Not Hardly, Hard
So, when I run an IGP such as OSPF between two adjacent routers, and the routers gives preferential treatment to OSPF packets so as to maintain convergence and a stable network topology, I am violating your (for whatever reason) network neutrality? Or perhaps I use MPLS to reduce latency for voice by throttling latency agnostic protocols such as FTP.

What a maroon indeed&
Posted by jdscott (6 comments )
Link Flag
 

Join the conversation

Add your comment

The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Click here to review our Terms of Use.

What's Hot

Discussions

Shared

RSS Feeds

Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.