Senator wants to ban 'fast lane' for Web

TalkBack 12 of 28:

Next »

« Previous

• Thread View
• Flat View

The bill is irrelevant and the telcos are right.

I did not enjoy writing that.

But the bill blocks what the telcos do not want, and permits them the differential pricing they intend.

And the public gains by having lower bills for telco services.

First, here's a statement showing that the bill is unnecessary.

Quoting:
The U.S. Telecom Association, which counts both large and small telecommunications providers as members, said Thursday that the bill was unnecessary because "the FCC clearly has the authority and has already demonstrated the will to protect consumer choice and address cases of blocking, impairment or degradation."
EoQ

And some bigger telcos say they had no intention of violating those rules.

Quoting:
BellSouth pledged in a statement on Thursday not to block or degrade "legitimate" Net traffic AT&T also said it will not block or degrade content.
EoQ

What do the telcos want,then? Differential pricing for services that use a lot of bandwidth and which benefit from faster services, which the Senator proposing the bill is happy to give them.

Quoting:
Wyden said that he didn't oppose companies offering different speeds of service at different prices, a practice already undertaken by several major Internet providers, provided that content is treated equally within each level of service.
EoQ

"... treated equally..." means that an effective monopoly cannot be given to the highest bidder. If Yahoo buys faster return of search results search results than Google, that's bad. If Yahoo and Google both pay the same amount extra, meaning charges based on a single price schedule, that's okay.

Worth noting that any company which does not obtain the services using that price schedule is going to be at a severe disadvantage.
And, given that the usual approach involves decreasing unit costs as the number of units used increases, small outfits are also going to be in a difficult situation.

But, at least as far as direct profits are concerned, the public gains from this approach by the telcos.

Quoting:
"Without a managed network, the only way customers will be able to be sure they can enjoy high-bandwidth services is by upgrading to higher-speed connections whether they need them for everyday applications on not," said Herschel Abbott, [BellSouth's] vice president of governmental affairs. "That choice should be the customer's choice, not the government's choice."
EoQ

If the only way for the customer to get fast service is to buy it, then the customer will have to pay more for the extra capacity.

The alternative is for customers to be able to receive very fast downloads, but to get them only from companies which have paid for the privilege.

Yes, those companies will pass along the extra they're paying. But in a competitive, price sensitive market, there will be advantages to absorbing some of the cost.

Given the provider companies' leverage with the telcos, I'd rather have them arguing for reduced prices than me. I'd lose.

There is no fully satisfactory choice. The best strategy for the public is to support the predator who is a bit less hungry.

Posted by: Anton Philidor   Posted on: 03/02/06 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

• Breaking DB2 Platform Barriers Quest Software Are you supporting DB2 on multiple platforms? In this Quest white paper ... Download Now
• Building the Virtualized Enterprise with VMware Iinfrastructure VMware VMware virtualization software has been adopted by over 120,000 enterprise ... Download Now
• Three Steps You Need to Know to Stop Data Loss Varonis Sensitive data exposed to misuse or loss... it is the stuff of nightmares ... Download Now