» June 2006
» Cox Interactive Proves Themselves Worthy of Their Homonym...
[Previous entry: "New Work — myIT.com Trade Show Booth"
] [Next entry: "More New Work..."
06/08/2006: "Cox Interactive Proves Themselves Worthy of Their Homonym..."
the hum of my AC...feeling:
Fine. Sleepy. Whatever.
According to AdRants, a blog/newsletter that I subscribe to, Cox Interactive is blocking user access to Craigslist.org. Since I know that some of you (Mom, Grandma, perhaps Dad) don't know what that is, here's a breakdown.
Craigslist is a site where people can post classifieds. They are organized by region (major metro area) and type of ad. They are nothing new though, just classifieds. Free. Classifieds.
Well, apparently Cox Interactive (which is owned by Cox Communications, which also owns a newspaper group) has decided that it's going to filter the content of web sites that compete with services offered by its parent company. I say BOOOOOOO!
I'm glad that I, for one, do not have Cox Cable internet service. Because let me tell you something. I pay for access to the internet, not the internet YOU like, Mr. or Mrs. Cox, and not just the internet that YOU can make money off of. I hope you get your asses sued right off. Seriously.
This also smacks of the reality for the whole "pay for bandwidth" thing that is in front of congress right now. Here's the deal, if you aren't up on the whole thing. There is a bill in front of congress right now that is attempting to make it legal for ISPs to charge popular websites for the traffic that is inbound to their servers. So, let's say that Google or, better yet, MySpace is particularly popular (as they are. In fact there was a number thrown out a month or so ago that 10% of ALL internet traffic could be attributed to MySpace. Seriously, Wow).
This bill would let the ISPs charge MySpace for the bandwidth used to connect to them. So, if MySpace decided not to pay a specific ISP (say Cox, because they are a convenient scapegoat here), and you were a Cox subscriber, MySpace would be incredibly slow for you. Your neighbor, however, who has MCI DSL, who may or may not charge for the bandwidth, or charge less, whatever, would access it at full DSL speed. (And of course, since Cable can be faster than DSL, the DSL people might not even notice.)
There are numerous problems with this. Not the least of which is that I want to know, before I sign up, as well as during the term of my service, what sites are being slowed down because they haven't paid for your pipe, as it were. Like I said, I pay for access and speed. If you limit speed to the stuff I want, you better refund me some money.
The second major problem I see that that the website cannot control it own popularity. I know plenty of people who have set up sites that get popular, only to not be able to pay the hosting overages if they haven't prepaid for enough bandwidth. So, this is essentially a double whammy. Most major websites are constantly struggling to upgrade equipment constantly. They are trying to get every ounce of life out of the machines they have before they add more, replace them, get a wider network pipe (because they DO already pay an ISP on their own to be connected), etc. This is just one more barrier for the entrepeneur. Bitches.
That's it. I am done writing about this. I lost my train of thought. But, sufficed to say, I am livid about this. Cox Cable, YOU SUCK. Congress, and the ISPs that are begging for this bill, YOU SUCK TOO.
Replies: 2 Comments
On Tuesday, June 13th, Bernie said
Your arguement was fairly cogent until the rant....
Hopefully all the IT people out there are paying attention to the legislation. I wonder who has the strongest lobbiest?
On Tuesday, June 13th, Jon said
It's not just the IT people who need to be concerned. It's the consumers. How long will it be, if this thing passes, until you can't get to Google through AT&T's DSL access because they have a deal with Yahoo?
Fortunately, last friday, the opposing "Network Neutrality" bill passes the House. Come on Senate, let's get this done right.