Hoi, The American company BellSouth Corp. wants to have organisations pay transport fees for the content they deliver over the Internet. http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story.asp?guid=%7B02432D2D-1EE0-4037-A15F-54...
They have even the affront to say that the Internet end users should welcome this.
This mail is perhaps a bit off what we typically discuss on our mailing lists, but it may lead to us having sharks like BellSouth Corp. knocking on our doors..
Thanks, GerardM
GerardM wrote:
Hoi, The American company BellSouth Corp. wants to have organisations pay transport fees for the content they deliver over the Internet. http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story.asp?guid=%7B02432D2D-1EE0-4037-A15F-54...
They have even the affront to say that the Internet end users should welcome this.
This mail is perhaps a bit off what we typically discuss on our mailing lists, but it may lead to us having sharks like BellSouth Corp. knocking on our doors..
I invite the honourable organisation to review the concept of bandwidth.
Chris
*facepalm*...I don't think this'll get anywhere mostly because it's an idiotic idea.
On 1/17/06, Chris Jenkinson chris@starglade.org wrote:
GerardM wrote:
Hoi, The American company BellSouth Corp. wants to have organisations pay transport fees for the content they deliver over the Internet.
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story.asp?guid=%7B02432D2D-1EE0-4037-A15F-54...
They have even the affront to say that the Internet end users should welcome this.
This mail is perhaps a bit off what we typically discuss on our mailing lists, but it may lead to us having sharks like BellSouth Corp. knocking on our doors..
I invite the honourable organisation to review the concept of bandwidth.
Chris
-- Chris Jenkinson chris@starglade.org
"Mistrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful." -- Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
-- ~Ilya N. http://w3stuff.com/ilya/ (My website; DarkLordFoxx Media) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ilyanep (on Wikipedia)
On 1/17/06, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, The American company BellSouth Corp. wants to have organisations pay transport fees for the content they deliver over the Internet. http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story.asp?guid=%7B02432D2D-1EE0-4037-A15F-54...
They have even the affront to say that the Internet end users should welcome this.
Seems to me like they're just trying to offer an additional service (faster, more reliable) on top of the ones they already offer. I don't see the big deal.
Anthony
On 1/17/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Seems to me like they're just trying to offer an additional service (faster, more reliable) on top of the ones they already offer. I don't see the big deal.
Anthony
The way these businesses work things, the slippery slope argument is *very* applicable. Even if they charge for traffic, and they merely impose extra charges on all new services and speeds, eventually you will have no choice but to pay, because bandwidth requirements go ever up- analogously, if someone offered you a totally free 512 bps Internet connection, would you take it? What if "paying for premium connections" had gotten started when 512 bps were the norm for home users?
~Maru
On 1/17/06, Maru Dubshinki marudubshinki@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/17/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Seems to me like they're just trying to offer an additional service (faster, more reliable) on top of the ones they already offer. I don't see the big deal.
Anthony
The way these businesses work things, the slippery slope argument is *very* applicable. Even if they charge for traffic, and they merely impose extra charges on all new services and speeds, eventually you will have no choice but to pay, because bandwidth requirements go ever up- analogously, if someone offered you a totally free 512 bps Internet connection, would you take it? What if "paying for premium connections" had gotten started when 512 bps were the norm for home users?
~Maru
I don't know about you, but I *already* have no choice but to pay for Internet access and other telecommunications services, so I really don't see what the big deal is. But maybe I'm missing something.
"analogously, if someone offered you a totally free 512 bps Internet connection, would you take it?" I'm not sure what the point of this question is, but if it was an always-on connection hell yeah I'd take it. I'd love even just a 1 bps Internet connection just so I could send a short message to my computer from some other location to connect for real (or to determine its IP address, or whatever). But I'm one of those poor souls who can't currently get DSL.
Anthony
When you pay for Internet access, you pay for the utility of Internet. The ISP provides you with access to the Internet. This means that they provide you with a SPECIFIC bandwith. What BellSouth is doing is essentially not only make you pay but the organisation that is putting content on the Internet as well. So they make you pay twice because it is obvious that the organisation that is made to pay will increase your bill by that amount.
Until this time you pay for a service, a given amount of access to the Internet. With this proposal you do not get this service because additional tolls have to be paid.
Thanks, GerardM
On 1/18/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 1/17/06, Maru Dubshinki marudubshinki@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/17/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Seems to me like they're just trying to offer an additional service (faster, more reliable) on top of the ones they already offer. I don't see the big deal.
Anthony
The way these businesses work things, the slippery slope argument is *very* applicable. Even if they charge for traffic, and they merely impose extra charges on all new services and speeds, eventually you will have no choice but to pay, because bandwidth requirements go ever up- analogously, if someone offered you a totally free 512 bps Internet connection, would you take it? What if "paying for premium connections" had gotten started when 512 bps were the norm for home users?
~Maru
I don't know about you, but I *already* have no choice but to pay for Internet access and other telecommunications services, so I really don't see what the big deal is. But maybe I'm missing something.
"analogously, if someone offered you a totally free 512 bps Internet connection, would you take it?" I'm not sure what the point of this question is, but if it was an always-on connection hell yeah I'd take it. I'd love even just a 1 bps Internet connection just so I could send a short message to my computer from some other location to connect for real (or to determine its IP address, or whatever). But I'm one of those poor souls who can't currently get DSL.
Anthony _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
GerardM wrote:
When you pay for Internet access, you pay for the utility of Internet. The ISP provides you with access to the Internet. This means that they provide you with a SPECIFIC bandwith. What BellSouth is doing is essentially not only make you pay but the organisation that is putting content on the Internet as well. So they make you pay twice because it is obvious that the organisation that is made to pay will increase your bill by that amount.
Until this time you pay for a service, a given amount of access to the Internet. With this proposal you do not get this service because additional tolls have to be paid.
I propose that if BellSouth go ahead with this stupid idea of theirs, we block access to all people connecting from BellSouth and tell them to switch their ISP. They will learn fast enough that their idea is stupid.
Chris
On Wed, 18 Jan 2006, Chris Jenkinson wrote:
I propose that if BellSouth go ahead with this stupid idea of theirs, we block access to all people connecting from BellSouth and tell them to switch their ISP. They will learn fast enough that their idea is stupid.
BellSouth provide the customers.
They think they can charge the Content Providers.
This is a very old debate, about Peering. All the major ISPs are familiar with it. The bigger Dogs get to charge the smaller Dogs.
I live in South Africa - we (as a country) pay to peer - we are a smaller Dog. America never pays to peer. Europe used to - I am not sure they do any more.
BellSouth think they are a Big Dog.
Cheers, Andy!
It is not particularly about peering even tough it is a similar story. BellSouth wants to have an organisation like Apple pay for providing bandwith to its customers. This in turn means that by subscribing to an ISP you are giving it the "power" to abuse this final mile control. With South Africa it is different in that access to South Africa from American resources is relatively expensive. This can be negated by moving resources closer to Africa.
It would be interesting to know what is more expensive, connecting Africa from Europe compared to connecting Africa from the USA. This could factor in where resources of the Wikimedia Foundation are located. We are according to Alexa the 19th website in the world. When we move because of schemes like this, it might be noticed.
Thanks, GerardM
On 1/18/06, Andy Rabagliati andyr@wizzy.com wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jan 2006, Chris Jenkinson wrote:
I propose that if BellSouth go ahead with this stupid idea of theirs, we block access to all people connecting from BellSouth and tell them to switch their ISP. They will learn fast enough that their idea is stupid.
BellSouth provide the customers.
They think they can charge the Content Providers.
This is a very old debate, about Peering. All the major ISPs are familiar with it. The bigger Dogs get to charge the smaller Dogs.
I live in South Africa - we (as a country) pay to peer - we are a smaller Dog. America never pays to peer. Europe used to - I am not sure they do any more.
BellSouth think they are a Big Dog.
Cheers, Andy! _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
On 1/18/06, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
When you pay for Internet access, you pay for the utility of Internet. The ISP provides you with access to the Internet. This means that they provide you with a SPECIFIC bandwith. What BellSouth is doing is essentially not only make you pay but the organisation that is putting content on the Internet as well. So they make you pay twice because it is obvious that the organisation that is made to pay will increase your bill by that amount.
Until this time you pay for a service, a given amount of access to the Internet. With this proposal you do not get this service because additional tolls have to be paid.
Thanks, GerardM
I guess I just don't understand what this proposal is all about. Did you read some other articles about it other than the one you provided? Because the article whose url you gave doesn't really make it clear what is going on.
Content providers already do pay to put their content on the Internet, and personally I would think that the proper move would be to shift costs away from the content providers.
Which is to say, if the proposal really is trying to force content providers to pay more for providing content I would think the free market would take care of making sure it never succeeds :). Even BellSouth doesn't have *that much* market power.
Anthony
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org