It's no surprise (4.00 / 1)

But it does come with a certain irony that this story is immediately followed by google ads offering verizon services. the spy satellites can see inside your brain.

John McCain opposes the GI Bill.

---

by: Lucas O'Connor @ Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 19:50:14 PM UTC

This is (0.00 / 0)

Terrifying.  Like scary horror stuff.

---

by: PoliOperative @ Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 20:19:20 PM UTC

Charter as well (0.00 / 0)

Charter Communicates has just started doing this as well, but isn't displaying ads.  They are showing a generic looking Internet Explorer-looking error message (which looks quite odd on Safari or Firefox) when an invalid domain is typed in.

They're not showing advertising, but are clearly collecting usage information.  There has been a lot of talk in the past that ISPs are selling mistyped domains and the like to domain speculators.  Whatever little bit of cash they can squeeze out of their operation, they will...

---

by: dune2 @ Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 23:08:55 PM UTC

charter correction (0.00 / 0)

I take that back - Charter is showing search results with advertising.  I'm getting the Internet Explorer error because I "opted out."  Clearly, all I opted out of was the ads, not the tracking.

---

by: dune2 @ Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 23:10:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

AT&T''s "walled garden" IPTV strategy (4.00 / 1)

Another telco strategy for weakening the open Internet at the expense of their walled-garden services is reflected in the network architecture and bandwidth allocation of AT&T, now the largest U.S. telco by far after its late '06 acquisition of BellSouth.

Basically, AT&T is deploying a "next generation" fiber-to-the-node (FTTN) network that delivers maybe 25 Mbps of capacity.  Its assigning the bulk of that capacity to its highly controlled walled-garden "IPTV" service, with Internet capacity currently limited to 2-6 Mbps download speeds.  This is barely enough to match what most cable operators are deploying today with current generation technology.

In addition, AT&T is working to develop "best of Internet" IPTV video services that will allow it to serve as gatekeeper and toll-collector for these services, as the cable industry has done with traditional cable TV channels for decades.

So, by limiting Internet bandwidth on its next-generation network (which it might employ for many years), AT&T is creating an infrastructure that will tend to weaken the appeal of Internet-based video (and other bandwidth-hungry) services relative to its own IPTV service.

While AT&T agreed to some form of network neutrality to win approval for its BellSouth acquisition, that commitment (which I think was only for 2 years), applied only to the portion of its network that carries "Internet" services--not to its IPTV service, or its network capacity in general.

So, as I see it, this AT&T strategy could allow it to sidestep much of the impact of network neutrality rules, if the latter were just applied to "Internet" service.

And because AT&T isn't offering lots of Internet bandwidth after upgrading its network, local cable systems that compete with these upgraded AT&T networks will have less incentive to increase their own Internet capacity, and more incentive to follow AT&T's lead in migrating "best of the web" content to their own walled-garden (which they're already doing, anyway). 

Without a strong market entrant to disrupt the duopoly structure in these markets, a likely scenario is an increasingly stagnant Internet bandwidth allocation, and an increased focus on boosting monthly revenues from walled-garden services, including some nifty, but carrier-selected (not user-selected) IP-based services.  This strategy (unfortunately for the Internet) makes good business sense for both duopolists.

Some "open network" supporters, including David Isenberg and (I think) Susan Crawford, are beginning to advocate "structural separation" rather than "net neutrality" as the only solution that can effectively achieve the desired goal of non-dicriminatory network access on the open-Internet model.  It has been done elsewhere in the world, but would probably be a helluva uphill political fight in this country.

---

by: mitchipd @ Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 00:24:45 AM UTC

Disappointed with this entry (0.00 / 0)

I'll be the first to promote the ideals of net neutrality but I feel like this is a case where someone's offhand comment on a forum has been taken way out of proportion by consumeraffairs.com. I'm really disappointed that you, Matt, would post an article like this citing that article without thinking it through for one second. I usually feel like you know what you're talking about.

So let me break it down since no one else has so far. (You all can feel free to flame me to oblivio as I already expect that this comment will be given a piss poor rating anyway.)

Verizon has decided that becuase a lot of users mistype their URL's, they'll use a custom DNS setting that will redirect your request to what looks like a branded Yahoo page which happens to have ads on it. These ads generate revenue for Verizon.

This is really similar to the basic service OpenDNS provides; of course OpenDNS has a few other useful features.

Also, if you install Firefox on your computer, you don't seem to mind that your default search page is a branded Google page. Sure this page doesn't have any advertisements but the Mozilla Foundation makes money off of this, folks, and I, for one, am happy that they get it. It costs a lot of money to make software and they should keep up the good work.

What Verizon really did wrong was make this an opt-out service rather than allow the user to decide to opt-in. When there are advertisements present, we all like to get incensed. I do wonder, however, if there is information on this "feature" being present is available before signing up for the service. The opt-out process is certainly available to everyone.

Of course, everyone's quick to say "give them an inch, and they'll take a mile" but I think this is a case of hype taking over. I think this is just an obnoxious practice rather than a Net Neutrality violation.

---

by: abhay @ Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 05:09:42 AM UTC

Not really the same (0.00 / 0)

OpenDNS and Firefox are both conscious decisions - one by the system maintainter(s) and one by the user. Neither of them is the default internet.

Verizon is changing the default internet for its users to include a revenue stream for their benefit.

Surely you can see how they are different.

Having said that, I agree with you that it's an obnoxious practice and should be opt-in, not opt-out. If it's not a Net Neutrality violation (and I'm not going to try to decide how I feel about that), it's a misstep by Verizon in decidedly that general direction. So blech to them.

Karl in Drexel Hill, PA

---

by: KB @ Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 13:15:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It could be the same. (0.00 / 0)

Is the question, then, whether or not signing up for a service is a concious decision? If they were clear about this "feature" they're providing when one signs up, I think it would be.

---

by: abhay @ Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 18:51:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yes (0.00 / 0)

Yes, exactly that. Yes, indeed.

If someone wants slower service or more advertising to get a lower monthly cost for their service, that should be their decision.  Or pay more to have the ISP do some "added value" so they don't have to deal with raw internet stuff, they should absolutely have the option to do that. AOL made billions with that business model.

But it was a conscious decision. Net neutrality means getting to decide.


Karl in Drexel Hill, PA

---

by: KB @ Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 13:20:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]