FCC Chieft agrees to limit access to Google or pay

[sinatosk]

FCC Chief Kevin Martin yesterday gave his support to AT&T and other telcos who want to be able to limit bandwidth to sites like Google, unless those sites pay extortion fees. Martin made it clear in a speech yesterday that he supports such a a "tiered" Internet.

- source

got this info all from digg.com

Title is abit misleading I know but it's to gets people attention. anyways...

[Ianmac45]

this seems like a violation of the bill of rights, but i can't really tell

did anyone else get this feeling?

[mAcOdIn Veteran]

No, it's not an attack on the bill of rights. You can always say what you want(within reason) but you never had the right to do it on someone elses dime. The internet is the first beast of it's kind so it's hard to compare it to something but I guess it'd be akin to paying a flat fee on a printing press then taking up a huge majority of it making them have to build more machines to serve their other customers.

Obviousely, the ones actually delivering the bandwidth deserve and need to make money, they have to keep laying more and more and it'll never stop, we'll always be needing more bandwidth.

But I still don't like the idea of them charging extra fees to the websites, it'd throw everything upside down. I don't know though, I'd have to find out more about their current profits and income and all that before I decide on this. Maybe we're getting off to well as the consumer with our unlimited usage packages, or maybe web sites are getting off to cheaply, or maybe the companies involved already make enough money in this segment and just want more. I don't know. But the idea of them being able to charge for their usage is not wrong.

[Japlabot]

The customer pays a monthly cost that is to cover network maintenance and the bandwidth that they use.

When a customer connects to a Google server, it is purely opt-in, Google doesn't force anyone to use AT&Ts bandwidth to access Google servers. If Google were using AT&T lines to sent unsolicited data that is using network resources, fair enough, but they are not. Google shouldn't pay them, and AT&T customers that were unsatisfied with the speed when they access their most used websites (Google) will soon leave because they are not getting the speed that they paid for.

[sdb815]

The customer pays a monthly cost that is to cover network maintenance and the bandwidth that they use.

When a customer connects to a Google server, it is purely opt-in, Google doesn't force anyone to use AT&Ts bandwidth to access Google servers. If Google were using AT&T lines to sent unsolicited data that is using network resources, fair enough, but they are not. Google shouldn't pay them, and AT&T customers that were unsatisfied with the speed when they access their most used websites (Google) will soon leave because they are not getting the speed that they paid for.

I agree, this sounds like a bad idea to me. (N)

[Fourjays Veteran]

Sounds like a very bad idea. It will stop small sites from rising up, as stated in the article.

Apart from that, we are paying the ISPs to give us access to the internet. Not their selection of preferred sites and services. Please forgive me if this last bit doesn't sound relevant, as I may be misunderstanding it a bit.

[Argi]

I dont see there being any upside to a "tiered" internet for customers. Is there something I'm overlooking or is this just another way to make more money and destroy small businesses in the process?

[The_Decryptor Veteran]

I dont see there being any upside to a "tiered" internet for customers. Is there something I'm overlooking or is this just another way to make more money and destroy small businesses in the process?

It's basically an easy way for them to charge more for the same service your currently getting, they limit your speed for certain sites and protocol's, then force you to pay more (and the sites) if you want to use the full extent of your bandwidth for those things (e.g. limiting BitTorrent to 1/3rd of your total bandwidth, then charging you so they allow full speed)

[cybershark]

This demonstrates all the talk about bridging the digital divide is BS.

[Crono21]

Im not really worried about this because I dont think it will come to fruition. Nobody is for this except for the phone companies, and that moron whose in charge of the FCC. If they really do try and go through with this id imagine theyll be held up in legal battles for along time.

[+M2Ys4U Subscriber¹]

Hopefully other ISPs will use this as a promotion tool "We don't you charge extra to use your bandwidth" sorta thing. Maybe AT&T will back down then.

[Shof]

****ING att!!..i swear i hate them...i have there ****ty rotten att dsl at home :(

[+StevoFC MVC]

that is one of the most retarded things i have heard in a long time.

[majortom1981]

how will this work. Say google uses a verizon internet line like verizon fiber. How will at&t block google?

Wouldn't at&t have to make a deal with verizon to block googles traffic? Wouldn't verizon who serves google be screwing their customer (google)

ps this was just an example.

[ThatD00d]

Does this mean I can ask my ISP for a discount if they block any AT&T related sites? Or ad's that are hosted on their servers? Wouldn't this help out with my own ISP's bandwidth issues? With this, the little guy could help out the bigger guy!

On second thought, I might be willing to play a one time small fee for just this...

[mopper]

i dont see my cable company doing this. this is just a bad idea

[Jazza]

This is just plain stupid. I mean google and others are already paying for bandwidth, why should they have to pay for it again. It's just a money grabbing scheme, and I can't believe the FCC agreed.

Another question though, I'm guessing this only apply's to services in the US, so a European company can't be charged??

[b10h4z4rd]

And ISPs here charge too much already for a small amount of bandwidth. They are just trying to grab every little cent we got.

[L3thal Veteran]

I don't see why they should be charging search engines myself, but since when does the FCC rule correctly dealing with the internet? Regardless of the commissioner, they make rules and laws that are outright ridiculous and make no sense. I guess that's what lobbying does in the long run :whistle: