Re: AT&T/Scary!

From: Arthur Corliss <acorliss@nevaeh-linux.org>
Date: Mon Mar 06 2006 - 11:29:29 AKST

On Mon, 6 Mar 2006, Tim Johnson wrote:

> I heard about this merger on public radio this morning and heard in
> pieces something like this and I am paraphrasing:
>
> There is a move afoot for "toll charges" on the internet. There are
> indications that some of the big providers like AT&T are going to be
> throwing some *big* money at congress to make this happen.
>
> Well, if Al Gore "Invented" the internet, are the lobbyists going
> to "reinvent" the internet?
>
> Inquiring minds want to know.

I hate participating in discussions relating to the company I work for, but
I'm going to make an exception in this case. There is no overall movement
that I'm aware of to make Internet access a toll-based system in general.
Yes, some carriers and cable companies down south have suggested that we pay
more for downloading certain types of media, but the suggestion itself is
pretty stupid because it's so easy to work around any such system they might
deploy. In short, it's not technically feasible for them to do so, the only
thing they can accurately do is what most (mostly cable companies) do now:
charge for raw bandwidth utilization.

Now, when you get to VOIP there are legitimate questions of fairness to
consider. Real telcos have to pay into the Universal Service Fund, which in
turn subsidizes telecommunications access in areas that aren't economically
feasible. Carriers of last resort are federally mandated to
provide services in areas, but the subsidies only offset part of the cost of
providing that service. There is no way to make CLR a profitable business,
you have to have diversity in other services (like long distance, extra
calling features, voice mail, etc.).

Pure VOIP companies place a greater burden on traditional telcos because they
don't pay into the USF while taking away customers that also help keep CLRs in
the black. In short, USF participants are now subsidizing *VOIP* companies,
with no return.

Issues like VOIP & USF are complex issues, and the current system is
*definitely* not fair to all parties involved.

Then there's the recent report concerning (I think) Verizon, wanting to
preserve most of their bandwidth for paid-for features, while allocating a
smaller percentage to equal-access Internet traffic. I don't like the sound
of that either, but if they're talking about doing that with dark fiber that's
currently unused (because there's no business case to support turning them
on), I say go for it. Backbone providers must maintain equal-access use, but
they should also be allowed to use a portion of it to provide next-generation
services that help the company prosper (and in turn provide jobs and
investment opportunities for us little folk).

Now, if AT&T ever decided to try to make the Internet in general a
pay-for-play marketplace I will vehemently oppose it internally. But before
everyone has a knee-jerk reaction, you should give a few thoughts to how this
whole economic ecosystem works. It's not often as cut & dried as some would
have us believe.

         --Arthur Corliss
           Bolverk's Lair -- http://arthur.corlissfamily.org/
           Digital Mages -- http://www.digitalmages.com/
           "Live Free or Die, the Only Way to Live" -- NH State Motto
---------
To unsubscribe, send email to <aklug-request@aklug.org>
with 'unsubscribe' in the message body.
Received on Mon Mar 6 11:29:47 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Mar 06 2006 - 11:29:47 AKST