Slashdot Mirror
SBC CEO: Pay up if you want to use our pipes
acousticiris writes "If there were any delusions that Ma Bell Wasn't Back, SBC CEO Edward Witacre has cleared that up in an interview with Business Week Online. When asked about Google, Vonage and other Internet Upstarts he responded in typical Ma Bell Style: 'How do you think they're going to get to customers? Through a broadband pipe. Cable companies have them. We have them. Now what they would like to do is use my pipes free, but I ain't going to let them do that because we have spent this capital and we have to have a return on it. So there's going to have to be some mechanism for these people who use these pipes to pay for the portion they're using. Why should they be allowed to use my pipes?'."
This doesn't seem as funny as it used to be.
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
Don't they have ISP fees much like we do, whom probably pay the phone company for using their "pipes"?
In undeveloped countries, the consumer controls the market. In capitalist America, the market controls you.
The comment is interesting, but an empty threat. The *customer* is paying for the pipes. The companies that the customer contacts are not using the broadband pipe except on behalf of the customer: any downstream transmitted across that pipe is paid for by the customer. As a specific example, I can pay for various downstream speeds with my cable company and DSL is ordered with a speed for upstream and downstream. That price breakdown makes it clear that the broadband payment I'm making is for both upstream and downstream, otherwise why would my upstream remain constant but my downstream increase if I throw more money at the cable company?
On the other side of the fence the "Internet Upstarts" are paying for *their* pipes as well. Even the pipes "in the middle" are indirectly paid for, although that process can sometimes breakdown (as Level3 and Cogent are proving). It isn't like there is some magic way to get access from point A to point B "for free". The costs are just bundled in your access bills. What ticks off a telecom is that the prices for packets are so darn *cheap*. It makes land line voice look expensive, which is driving the adoption of VOIP.
If they decide that paying for your pipes (both directions) doesn't give you access to the services you want, the only option is to impose filtering. If they decide to filter, block or otherwise prevent the customer from unhindered access to Internet products they will be in violation of the common carrier provisions. Which is fine if they want to then make a stab at blocking *all* bad stuff the Internet contains. However, I suspect that's not where they want to be, as without common carrier status they become liable for anything they *fail* to block.
Frankly, all this comment proves is that they are desperate for revenue and yet know they can't raise rates on telephone services (thanks to regulation) so they are flailing around for anything they can think of. Legal probably sent him a "memo" right after that comment got back to them though, as I'm pretty sure *they* understand the ramification of the implied threat.
Sig under construction since 1998.
Why should they be allowed to use my pipes?
Because the customer is paying for them there pipes. Last time I checked, yip billed yesterday, I paid for my phone line, cable TV with broad band and if you want to include the cell phone, that is mildly broadband, then that too. Now Polyester Ed, if you are paying for my bills then you can say what can and can't go over the line; you want to regulate the neighbors line then you'll have to pay for that one too. I bet Google has some kind of leased line also but I doubt you can pickup their bill though; you'll have to ask them as I think they have some kind of business model or some other buzz word that will confuse you.
Now I believe Poly Ed is talking about the backbone network infrastructure that becomes a little shady. Does it make sense to pay 7 cents a minute to cross these main backbone lines? I wouldn't push a $100 billion gorilla too far; you may find that they'll replace your lines with something they own and then you'll be paying them.
We have them. Now what they would like to do is use my pipes free, but I ain't going to let them do that because we have spent this capital and we have to have a return on it. So there's going to have to be some mechanism for these people who use these pipes to pay for the portion they're using.
makes sense to me.. what's the problem?
Better question: Why the hell should I use SBC's pipes if they're going to be such dickheads about it?
Now I feel better.
Boycott everything - they're all trying to fuck you one way or another
Better yet, why should we continue to subsidize a dying business? First, you bitch when municpalities try to install subsidized internet for the masses, then you bitch when people try to use a monopoly connection to eliminate your services.
Stop whining and change your dying business model.
More
I knew that slashdot was going downhill, but why are they posting stories about CEO drug use? Who really cares who uses which pipe to smoke thier stuff in. It's all about puff puff pass people!
Put THAT in your pipe and smoke it!
Argh.
Whoa, wait a minute there. The customer has *already* paid to 'use the pipes'. I pay a monthly fee for internet access - why should I or Google, or Vonage have to pay extra to use the pipe for whatever I want?
What am I supposed to be outraged about? Broadband providers have never, as far as I can recall, provided bandwidth free of charge to their customers; nor would I expect them to. What am I missing here?
If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
Don't the people (businesses) who pay for a T1, DSL, fiber-to-the-curb, etc. already pay? Why should SBC be paid twice... is that what he is implying?
You installed these pipes while you were part of a regulated monopoly, using public right of ways.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
This isn't 1905 and as long as I have a few choices Ma Bell won't be one of them. I've got cable... if they blow it I can go satellite, Power, Fiber, and worst case scenario I'll become an activist to set up a community Coop ISP.
Ma Bell is to late in coming back to the game!
I
... why google has been buying tons of dark fiber in the past couple of years.
One of these days, this jerk^W typical CEO will realize -- too late -- that he has painted his company in a corner with that type of statement. By then, it will be too late to save SBC, but not too late to grant himself a huge, last-minute bonus.
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
Unless i'm on the wrong tariff, there's nothing "FREE" about the £19.99 I throw at my cable provider each month.
That up until last week his organization was stupid enough to GIVE away capacity?
Nothing to see here, move along.
It was a joke! When you give me that look it was a joke.
Just another sign that the US is about to be left behind.
These companies will simply offshore their hosting, leaving the US with nothing except the laughter of the rest of the world.
Most of the cost is in the fiber, copper & network boxen . Most of the value is in the content and services. Until someone figures out an equitable way for the services (Google et al) to pay for the costs (SBC et al), these types of disputes will continue.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
"pipes" and declare them equal to the public's airwaves. I'm thoroughly sick and tired of these monopolistic antics.
Steve Magruder, Metro Foodist
And, moreover, why such an outcry? The fact that collecting revenue on the use of somebody else's capital hasn't been the case, is the anomaly. Bandwidth, despite what you've been led to believe, isn't free. The RBOCs and others just LET it be free (as in beer...) to see what kinds of applications, and therefore business models, would pop up. Since we have an answer to that now, it's time for fee-based sensibilities to return to the market. maybe, if we're lucky, the new AT&T will buy Bell Labs back from Lucent, and start funding it the way it used to be. It's the best thing that could ever happen, IMHO.
I just now heard about this.
Is it too late to block this merger?
They are claiming the VoIP companies aren't paying to use their pipes, but isn't it the case, like any other internet traffic, we are paying for those pipes. Our ISP is paying for them if we aren't using them directly. It is just another service that we, the users, can use our internet for, and they shouldn't expect to be getting money on both ends.
Haha. Reminds me of a Futurama episode where Farnsworth tells Fry "Yes, that comment was less stupid than your prior one, although made in a profoundly stupid way." SBC has an absolute right to charge for use of it's equipment, but to make a statement in such a patronizing and stupid manner indicates problems down the road for SBC.
I appreciate that I've been getting all this broadband for free all this time. Oh, wait, I pay a monthly fee for that. Hmm, perhaps I can pay that fee to someone else who won't be so restrictive? Where is that number for Speakeasy...
The gentleman seems to have an odd understanding of how this all works. Google pays him to get to me, and I pay him to get to Google. The second that changes, I'll pay someone else who doesn't feel that it's a privledge to get my business.
He likes to use the word pipe. I think he's trying to compensate for something else. Next article... SBC CEO sexually frustrated!
See Sig! See Sig Zig! Zig Sig Zig!!!!!
What a moron.
What the hell does he mean by people using his "pipes" for free? I pay every month for my access. And I'm not paying for wires strung to my house, I'm paying for bandwidth, for the ability to get packets in and out of my router. Nothing free here, I paid for it.
Yes, there's someone on the other end making money on this and the greedy bastard thinks he should get "his share". Does he want that to apply to every transaction?
I called and ordered a pizza for delivery last night. Do they get a cut?
I checked my bank balance and paid a couple bills this weekend. Do they get a transaction fee?
I do work from home some days. Do I need to give them a portion of my pay when I do that?
Darl McBride. Steve Ballmer. Steve Jobs.
Reporting on CEO drug use is not a new thing around here.
I mean.. let's get real.
Best, url the bounty network
Best,
url80, The Bounty Network
Isn't there a british company lauching a satellite next year that will give nearly everyone in the world access to wireless broadband? Or are they talking about the internet backbones?
Technoli
He wants to charge web site owners a fee to connect with users; at least that's the implication.
In other words, you pay for your connection to the ISP, but he wants google to pay for the right for their bits to traverse across his backbone to get to you.
This sort of mindset is exactly why Google is dabbling in setting up WiFi networks and why Microsoft has been investing in community mesh networks. They need a credible alternative to DSL & Cabel internet access, or the providers of last mile connectivity will start looking for a share of revenue of everyone who delivers services over IP for access to "their customers" That's right, they want to charge you for the pipe on one end, and turn around and charge the people you are connecting to, on a per transaction basis, if at all possible.
Don't think they aren't determined to find a way to do it.
What's needed is enough competition to make it impossible for them, and that is going to take more than a choice between the cable company and the phone company, even better if some of that competition has ways of turning a profit beyond simply gouging for connectivity.
... I will leave you and go to a provider where my stuff _will_ work?
This stupidity will die when the board of directors of the first company that tries this fires the CEO for the inevitable backlash.
How much scarier if the government blocked these services to protect their phone monopoly money? Thank goodness the US telecom market is mostly private...
I already pay to connect to the internet.
When I drive to a restaurant are they going to pay because
I use a road to get there? No, I pay my taxes to use the road.
Some thing.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
"That price breakdown makes it clear that the broadband payment I'm making is for both upstream and downstream, otherwise why would my upstream remain constant but my downstream increase if I throw more money at the cable company?"
That's more a technological limitation than anything else. Cable is asymmetric, and so's DSL. Even old-fashion dial-up's been asymmetric since the beginning.
In context, he is talking about VOIP.
In effect, SBC is providing the means by which VOIP providers are competing with SBC's phone line business. That's what bother him.
But he has to understand, if SBC is going to offer generic internet service, they have to tolerate customers using it for whatever they want. What Whitacre and his ilk would like is to regulate what customers can do with the service. This would start with shutting out competition and progress to charging for each protocol, port, destination, etc..
We have to preserve the common carrier principle in internet access.
She is going to come in, claim to fix all those nasty problems with the internet, and get money to do so.
People will pay to have a 'cleaner','smarter' internet, and she will have a contract that basically lets her control anything comeing into or out of the computer.
These people are really good at this game. They will stand in front of congress and lie, they will cheat, they increase there rates and call it a tax so people will think it's cause of the government.
SHe's a bitch, she is smart, and she has no morals. Don't turn your back on ma bell, she'll put a shiv in it.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Naturally SBC would be very happy to discuss these new business development ideas with you!
He wants to charge both parties using his network? SBC subscribers already pay for bandwidth, now he wants to charge the sites paying SBC subscribers connect to? Bizarre.
org.slashdot.post.SignatureNotFoundException: ewg
since the American people subsidized them through TAXES and SURCHARGES WE FUCKING PAID. How about we, The People, take back the part of those pipes WE paid for and then you, "the corporations"*, can pay The People for using OUR pipes that you're making money off of. That way we, The People, can choose who WE want to be in control of the pipes. Just so long as Google stamps out an iron-clad privacy policy where they don't frigging data mine everything on the pipes I'd give all my pipes to them in exchange for fast access (something along the lines of 10mb/10mb would be nice) and the ability to host my own servers.
*Please note that corporations are lower-case and should be treated as such. They should not hold the same status legally as The People (we're mentioned in the Constitution, not them). Period. I'm all for the "American Dream" but not at the total expense of We, The People.
Dream as if you'll live forever.
Live as if you'll die tomorrow.
~Anonymous~
Let me get this right. The CEO of a very powerfull company said "but I ain't going", where the correct way would be "but I am not going"? Damn, CEO and still cannot speak proper English. Pretty scary.
when the Internet was not available to the general public and was not in the hands of profit-oriented business bastards.
Wow after comments like these I can almost feel the next article coming on about how far the US is lagging behind the rest of the world on broadband.
Before, the Bell System enjoyed a monopoly, a subsidized monopoly, in the US. It was then broken up.
90 percent of what ANY Bell spin-off is beholden to that monopoly. WE, the US consumers paid for 90 percent of their copper. ANY profits made since then, if paid back to the US consumer, would NOT BE ENOUGH to reimburse us for what we endured.. This fool thinks anyone owes his present corporation anything? He needs to pull his head out of his ass, he needs fresh air. Yeah bubba, I am talking to YOU.
Maybe it is time to call in past "favors". WE PAID FOR MOST OF IT. Figure it out. You are here MERELY due to our past support, albiet unwilling(see monopoly is any dictionary).
This has been quite intelligently commented on NerdTV Ep4 Juicy bits.
He mentions AOL initial business model to have content providers pay AOL rather than AOL paying the providers and how they totally missed the opportunity to rule the internet.
Not a totally stupid idea...
Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity
In other news, SBC CEO Edward Witacre has been quoted as saying
"Look, I can't have everyone using these pipes for free. Who is going to clean these pipes? I mean, I clean my own pipes every night before bed, and that takes 15 minutes. But these pipes are going to be used by everyone. I'm not touching that mess with a 10 foot pole."
It's just like the CxO of (I forget which telco) who said basically, "Why in the world would you expect your cellphone to work in your house?"
He's essentially clueless. Google, Yahoo et al. already do pay for the 'pipes'. They pay someone (or probably multiple someones) for their upstream bandwidth, who in turn will be paying their upstream, or in the case that they are tier-1, will own and will have paid for the infrastructure anyway. No one is getting to use the 'pipes' for free. The guy just doesn't have a clue, that's all.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
The govt granted him and a few others regional monopolies to provide that last end of cable to customers. If anyone were allowed to do the same, the free market would dictate a mess of cables as far as the eye can see, ala Hong Kong or Taiwan. Given that, he better play nice because the govt, which, as we may recall, represents tax payers, can easily revoke that priviledge. Hell, what's to stop us from nationalizing that last mile? He should be a little more courteous.
2 years and no mod points. Join reddit. Because openness is good.
Pretty much sounds like it: trying to defend a business with an out of date business model by attempting to 'regulate' rather than trying to compete and give their customers what they want.
It may take a few years but unless he changes business tactics his company will slowly die, just as the dinosaurs did when conditions changed and they did not adapt fast enough.
$0.25/min long distance, and if you didn't like it, you could write a letter - cause Ma Bell owned the system. Telephones? Oh, no, you couldn't buy them, they could only be leased from Ma Bell on a monthly basis.
There was a reason that Bell was broken up. It seems that everyone at the FCC was born after that decision, and only feels pity for the poor, destitute baby bells taht just can't compete as little guys. And they're so darned cute, wouldn't it be great if they were just one big company. Think of the efficency! Phone rates could be cut in half and in half again, if they just weren't made to compete with one another. *shakes head*
The whole separation of infrastructure from service is a good thing, in general, for prices (California's f*cked up electrical system notwithstanding). If you let one company control the lines and the service, all you'll get is lousy service and high prices.
This is where we're headed, and taking your business "elsewhere" won't mean much when most of the system ends op owned by one company, whether through buy-outs or mergers.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Those are not YOUR pipes, you were subsidized by tax dollars to "lay" those pipes, they belong to the public, that is why you have "share" with the other children. Go back to Fuckstickia with your Fuckstickian ways.
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing. Emo Philips
Why that Self-righteous glutinous SOB!!!! Those pipes have been paid for 100x over by now. SBC is just trying to save their old busniess model. Now, I'm not saying that they don't have a right to try and protect their buiness but I think they could come up with a better way of putting other than, "It's my ball and if you don't play my way I'm going home and taking my ball with me." I really think the all of the coporations in America are run by those same whiners from when were kids. So I think its time to insert Congress to take their ball and kick them to the curb.
"Help me Obi-/.-Kenobi,your my only hope!" -$
Whitacre is Darth Vader; AT&T is his Death Star. Google, Yahoo and the rest of the Web aren't "freeloaders" - they're paying big bucks for lots of bandwidth. Whitacre might be pissed off that competition his SBC from monopolizing their bandwidth rates, though he's free to score them on SBC's turf, which includes California and Texas. But those big web corporations generate demand for his bandwidth. As do all Internet applications. Whitacre won't admit that, because he's a big toughguy who can't admit he depends on software services he doesn't own to grow his market. Next he'll complain that Hollywood gets a free ride on his network, and should pay him to pump their content, rather than his TV network paying them. Even though they already do pay him for all their telecom - that SBC offers competitively.
--
make install -not war
Dear Pipe Dude,
please try to go to google an other big content providers and tell them
that they have to pay you.
Watch what happens if they just stop providing content to your customers for a while,
just to make a point.
Oh, and btw. only in Soviet Russia, the content provider PAYS YOU!!!!
Clearly this is a man who is comfortable with the idea of monopolies being granted to him (and not his competitors) and uncomfortable (even angry) about anyone figuring out how to compete with him. My read on this is that, given a choice between innovation and staying in a monopoly world where he is king he'll choose the latter.
Welcome Back Ma Bell, we haven't missed you!
I'd like one each of the following tapes..
...
"To each his own"
"Whispers in the wind"
"Put it where it doesn't belong"
"My pipes need cleaning"
Randall for CEO! Woooo!
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
I can't think of any better way to drive away business.
Business customers will wonder whether their upstream bandwidth will be held hostage by SBC if they become too successful.
Consumer customers will wonder if their access to online services will be disrupted by an upstream b2b rate dispute.
Lawyers salivate at either prospect.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
You can imagine the CEO chewing on a toothpick, feet up on his desk, while saying this...
You can't talk about Wikipedia's flaws on Wikipedia
So whats the difference between Apple/Itunes and Vonage here? This makes as much sense as them requiring software companies to pay them money because the customers downloads software through the lines.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
If Google were to provide broadband to my house for less than twice what SBC charges, then I would be on GoogleBB in a heartbeat. Screw SBC with that kind of attitude. I figure that it would take Google at least 15 years to turn as evil as SBC, so I would worry about the threat of GooglEvil then.
No, I don't trust in god. He'll have to pay up front, like everybody else.
While the CEO is a clueless, inarticulate jackass (or at least tries to come across as a good ol' boy), the distinction he is trying to make may be the following: Ma Bell provides Internet connectivity to customers and also provides phone services (it's traditional market). Now, the CEO mentiones Google, but also Vonage, which, if I am not mistaken, is a VoIP service. They charge money for a service competing with one of Ma Bell's markets. That's probably what's sticking in the guy's craw. Google's services don't directly compete with Ma Bell (most of their stuff like search, gmail, maps, scholar, etc. is free) and they don't do VoIP (yet). So, Google was probably mentioned just for name recognition.
:-)
I think the mention of Vonage is the big hint as to what's got that bunch of monopolistic losers riled up - by providing things like VoIP, alternatives to what Ma Bell wants to monopolize (i.e. providing competition, innovation, all those great supposed benefits of the Free Market (tm)), those other nasty companies are clearly threatening to destroy the American Way of Life (tm) by taking away Ma Bells' ability to bleed customers white with impunity. Clearly, those companies should be made to pay through the nose for their temerity. ``Legislate, not Innovate'' - the age-old corporate motto.
So SBC charges Google to "reach" their customers or they block access. Google decides to be fair that they should charge SBC for each search that SBC customers instigate on Google or they block access. Whom do you think would be in breach of contract from the user's point of view? Google who provides a search service without commitment to the user or SBC who contracts to the user to supply internet connection services?
Sounds like at least one position is unsustainable...
The NSA: The only part of the US government that actually listens.
SBC: Pay us money.
Google: We don't want to.
SBC: But we really think you should. Pay us.
Google: Or what?
SBC: See that foot in his mouth? Well, if you don't, he's going to chew it clean off!
Google: That we'd pay to see. Ten bucks?
SBC: Or how about we enhance value for our customers by stopping all packets originating from 64.233.161.99? And 72.14.207.99? In fact, that whole block. Oh, yeah, and...
Google: (gets bored and leaves)
I can assure you, the best way to get rid of dragons is to have one of your own.
He doesn't want what he says he wants, at all.
.iso download. The only difference is that the specific content is perceived as a threat to SBC's business model.
If SBC starts regulating content on their wires, then they open up a huge legal can of worms regarding liability. VOIP is just content. It's conceptually no different than a video stream or an
But that doesn't change the fact that it's content.
I sincerely doubt SBC wants to be responsible for all the content that crosses their wires. The last thing any company needs, even one as big as Ma Bell, is an endless stream of lawsuits about kiddie porn, bomb making tutorials, warez downloads, DVD rips, mp3 streams, so on and so forth.
Common carrier means common carrier, and changing the definition of common carrier would cost an asinine amount of money, even by the standards of corporate fund-slinging on Capitol Hill.
Reality has a conservative bias: it conserves mass, energy, momentum...
So there's going to have to be some mechanism for these people who use these pipes to pay for the portion they're using.
There is. It's called a "phone bill," and I already pay it. What I do with the bandwidth is my own concern. I agree with him that if cable companies can carry phone traffic then phone companies should be able to carry television signals. But demanding a cut of Google's profits merely because they use phone lines is like demanding a share of all stock market transactions made over the phone.
The merger may have re-created a monopoly, but that alone is insufficient to maintain it.
Welcome to the 21st Century, Grandma Bell!
No more stupid AOLmericans on "teh Intarweb", time to break open that champagne my great great great grandmother left!
What good is a monopoly if you can't extort money?
Sure it seems like customers pay for internet service. But from his perspective, they pay because SBC has a right to their money.
What is the consumer's defense for companies like these? The FCC won't save you (at least not in its current form). Don't hold your breath for the FCC to rule that ISPs can't block VOIP or other services.
The only chance we have is a fair and competitive market. Today I can choose between Cable and DSL (I could even choose EVDO). Tomorrow, there will be even more choices.
We'll be fine as long as the FCC doesn't step in and regulate away our rights to choose (like they have with mobile phone service, giving carriers the right to charge egregious fees and tariffs and pass them off as government taxes).
For now, if Mr. Whitacre wants to try to charge extra to search google, good luck. Google wireless anyone?
The government has the interesting habit of selling the "public" airwaves in chunks.
Funny that...
Everything I need to know I learned by killing smart people and eating their brains.
... for those of us not using SBC and/or DSL? Nothing, I dont see. My cable company doesn't provide telephone... although it just joined with another cable company that offers VoIP at a cost double what I pay through Vonage. Why must CEO's speak of things they know nothing about? As another poster said, he just painted himself into a corner.
*NM*
And how do they propose to get .com's to pay them to "use their pipes?" What can they really do? Block access to google or Vonage? I don't think so... If they tried that with me... I would immediately switch ISPs... They would not be able to pay me to stay with them...
It is such an old school business attitude... The phone companies need to realize that the days of monopoly are over... The gig is up, the cat is out of the bag... etc... VoIP works great... Vonage is so simple to use... someone's grandparents could use it...
Even if there were some widespread blocking of Vonage... it would not be hard for them to get around it... It isn't like they have to stick to standard SIP ports... Their service could easily run over port 80... If they tried to block their IP address, could they not start using IP blocks from their ISPs? And hey.. aren't the ISPs already making money on transit costs for these companies...?
This guy is a real loser... Sell your stock in SBC
What they should do is start buying up what ever is the fastest current technology (Fiber?) and start wiring ALL of America over the next 10 years or so. This would employ thousands, and when the install is all said and done they can charge the providers (tax them) and make money off it.
It will be the new Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways, which helped to employ millions and helped make the economy boom. It's also taxed (tolls) and maintainence on it gives thousands jobs. It would be, IMHO, the smartest thing the government could do to kick start this economy.
Just think of it as a giant public works project that helps out geeks.
He can try to charge for VOIP, but as soon as he starts, thats when more innovation will go into beating his detection methods. Such as encrypting the call, tunneling through other protocols, etc. I understand that VOIP is very latency sensitive, and every layer we put on top of it could possibly lower the quality of the call, but I still believe we can achieve better quality than cell-phone while encrypting the information. The real question will be, will the US Government support him in his desire to charge. I guess it will be interesting to see, hopefully other companies like Vonage will step in and work against him.
I guess that 30% profit margin isn't quite enough for him.
Yeah, then "Hello, FCC!".
It sounds like he needs to "clean the pipes" a bit more often, he's too uptight :-)
I checked my bank balance and paid a couple bills this weekend. Do they get a transaction fee?
I do work from home some days. Do I need to give them a portion of my pay when I do that?
Hell yes I do, hell yes I do, and hell yes you should.
I win!
This for some odd reason is like the way my friend was speaking few months ago, here is the conversation:
"Nice pipes man!"
"Pipes?"
"You know... Pipes!"
"Huh?"
"WTF your problem?"
"What are pipes?"
"Exhust Pipes!"
Somehow that conversation has new meaning...
Also I am questioning whether CEOs are tryin to adopt this kind of technique to not call things by technical terms. Why cant we just say lines or something else? I prefer "things" myself.
Just try getting an SBC DSL line without paying for a voice line. You can't do it. So goodbye vonage, skype, etc over SBC pipes, because it just becomes redundant.
If I invited those three to a party, and could theoretically get them all to show.
Steve Jobs would bring beer. He'd smoke a little, drink a little, and play pool with random folks while yammering away about random bull. . Definitly invited back.
Steve Ballmer would smoke everyone elses weed, drink whatever beer was first up in the fridge, and act nervous about it. Eventually he'd get knocked enough to loosen up, and after dancing wildly on tables, hitting on a long-haired dude he would swear later was "hot", puke in a potted plant and pass out somewhere. Mabye invited back once. Only if the theoretical potted plant lives, and only then to rib him about it.
Darl would bring his own weed, a bag of really badly faded skank. He'd leave it on the kitchen counter. After a joint or two, he'd get paranoid and accuse folks of ganking his stash. He'd get tossed for picking a fight with a random partygoer and proceed to call the cops from his Beemer, claiming he'd been robbed of his pot. Of course, when the police respond, there's the baggie of pot on his dashboard. Not invited back.
.sig: Now legally binding!
If their routers deliver a consistently bad QoS to all packets sent over the wire: a bit of jitter, nothing to affect bulk throughput, just the whole VoIP experience, then you can get a bad skype/google talk experience without ever having your packets sniffed.
then you sign up with the cable telco's "high quality VoIP solution", which pretends to mean better pipes upstream but really means TCP without the jitter, they get their tax.
-steve
The problem is some one has to pay for the infastructure. If the phone companies stop making money at it they will stop maintaining the phone lines and expansion will cease. This won't be per se out of meanness or greed it will be from an inability to pay people to preform the tasks and to pay for wire and materials. The only real solution is to nationalize the wires both phone and cable. No one really wants that but it may be the only solution. The small amount they get from internet usage won't pay for the infastructure. Phone rates have been dropping like a rock for years and traditional phone companies are rapidly becoming unprofitable and may be unsustainable. People forget the bad old days before competition. Back in the sevenities almost anywhere you called was long distance and an hour long call could easily cost you $5, we're not talking adjusted dollars either. The average person now spends hundreds of hours, I'm guessing between 500 and 1,000 hours, a month on long distance. At 1970s rates in adjusted dollars that was more than most people would have made a month in total income, a couple of grand a month back then was really good money and $3.65 an hour was minimum wage. Phone rates have dropped radically and keep dropping. They are likely to continue to drop so I doubt traditional phone companies can survive. Before you say Ding Dong The Witch Is Dead imagine what will happen if it gets nationalized? Corporations tend to be more efficent, radically so, than government. The far better result would be for the corporations to survive but have stiff competition. I honestly can't see this happening without regulation that will enrage customers since they will see it as protecting corporate profits. It may in fact be mostly that but it's also protecting the infastructure. Before you cry BS imagine the next time your phone line or cable line goes down there's no one there to fix it? Your VOIP phone ain't gonna work then. It's a double edged sword. I hate the phone companies and they got fat in years past but we aren't better off if they go under. The lines may have been paid for decades ago but like roads they must be maintained and eventhough the right of way is public the lines are privately owned.
In the circuit-switched telephony world, carriers exchange CABS (Carrier Access Billing System) records, which are redeemed for cash at the end of each month. For example, you call your Uncle Zed long-distance for one minute and are charged six cents or whatnot by your phone company for the privilage. Well, Zed's phone company will charge CABS to your phone company, and at the end of the month, Zed's phone company will get a check containing a cent or two in payment for completing your call. It's not a lot of money but the volume is very, very high, and a phone co. can make some decent cash if they terminate a lot of calls (think dialups.)
Pretty obvious now where this guy is coming from, eh? Too bad the internet doesn't work like that! The best they will be able to do at this point is to work on screwing up peering agreements in their favor.
IMHO, the big telcos will be the first with their backs up against the wall when the revolution comes.
Even old-fashion dial-up's been asymmetric since the beginning.
The first commercial modems [1962] were 300bps and were synchronous. As were all the subsequent modems through 28.8k. It wasn't until the 33.6k modems [and accompanying dial-up access] started being asynchronous. [33.6down, 28.8 up]. And of course the 56k modems were as well.
So unless you don't consider 'dial-up' to have started until after 1996 [around the time the 33.6k modems were becoming popular] I'd have to say that's a bogus statement.
ender-
{Dialing into the internet since 1991 [starting at 2400bps], and I consider myself a late starter}
Nothing to see here
And compare this to POTS usage. If what he's saying is possible (or legal) wouldn't every company that takes an order, or sells a product, over the phone already be paying them a "tax" ? They pay a bulk rate for the telephone service (and a higher rate for an "800" service), but they do not pay a per-item tax. So how is this any different? Just wondering...
Now what they would like to do is use my pipes free, but I ain't going to let them do that because we have spent this capital and we have to have a return on it.
Bad grammar aside, I agree 100%.
We, the taxpayers of the United States of America paid for those lines and we had better get a return on our investment -- by using our pipes that we have already purchased for free.
Most women make me pay for using their pipes!
VoIP is the future. Why can I route an HTTP packet to Iran but not a packet with audio?
The more they fight it the stupider they look and eventually will lobby to play catchup [e.g. force the actual players to comply with stupid laws like E911]. Hey SBC, wake the fuck up, the days of $1.30 a minute to Europe are long over.
That and what of peering? You gonna charge me money to talk to a voip user who uses your ISP services? Ok, how about my ISP charge your customers money for using my ISP?
This is just more of "I don't get it, I don't want it, it shouldn't be".
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
So now it's apparent that google's dark fiber shopping spree wasn't to build their own public net but instead to build a whopper of an net parallel to ma-bell for google traffic. So google's long haul will be owned by google. Do you suppose this is what's really going to screw microsoft's uber-compete-with-google-on-search strategy? I would guess that dark fiber prices have just skyrocketed. How much fiber can $30bn buy and how fast can it go light?
"Stats: We're not making enough money. -- CEO: Hidden fees fly! Mwuhahaha! -- Everyone else: Wtf?"
It's never just a game when you're winning. - George Carlin
There is software that can detect VoIP traffic and even identify the carrier. Telcos use this to *protect their networks*, but it can also be extended to protect their profits.
While it is illegal for Witacre to drop all VoIP traffic, it doesn't mean he won't be identifying this traffic and providing it with highly degraded service with added noise, especially if the call's destination is one of his clients. This way he can do his best to maintain his customer base since the average customer will believe that using VoIP is like talking through a tincan.
Sure in the end the buggywhip tech of the old Ma bell will loose out, but it will be a prolonged fight. Witacre rebuilt ATT, he's pretty shrewd. -- the guy just single-handedly overturned one of the largest anti-trust cases ever. I don't think he's going to be easy to presuade with some little "laws".
Funny, Internet Protocols do not seem to suport SBC CEO's claim as they do not care about his profit margins.. Changing of the guard is coming.. SBC CEO better wake up..
Fred Grott(aka shareme) http://mobilebytes.wordpress.com
I don't know why, but every time he said "pipes" i thought he was talking about his arms.
/. biceps...
Maybe we should take him to the ol' Gun Show without our massive
Let's charge the people using the lines, and charge the services that are provided.
Why stop there?
Bill me for stopping to pick up groceries in addition to the groceries.
Charge my credit card for browsing Amazon
While I wait in line, absorbing all that heat you'r providing (or shedding BTUs alternately) charge me an hourly rate - no fractions!
This is the very heith of idiocy. Does he realize how much dark fiber is out there? This is right up there with banks and bank tellers: I used to interact with a human teller and get my funds, or deposit the til. Now, I 'interact' with a machine - a machine that doesn't have health care, disability insurance or a retirement plan - and the bank charges me - ME! - for the privilege of said machine use.
Oh wait I forgot. Greed is a very successful business model.
kulakovich
Why should they "let" Amazon use their pipes or any other Internet business for that matter?
:-)
The Internet should only exist to line the pockets of ISPs, dammit! 1/2
Say fuck 'em, and use wireless.
Nah...Darl would bring coke, and snort it in the bathroom.
Maybe we DID take the blue pill. You wouldn't remember anyway.
SBC Currently blocks any traffic on port 25 to dissuade would-be spammers. Whats stopping them from filtering out any VOIP traffic unless you pay X dollars so that you use said services?
On the other hand, why don't these phone companies realize that POTS is no longer their core revenue stream an focus on tranporting data and wireless services?
-
aphex
I Steal Music!
You are already being paid for the use of your bandwidth. I'm paying you. What I do with that bandwidth is none of your business. Data is data.
Kindly shove off.
Thanks, ~Dan
Ummmmm.....I'm guessing because your CUSTOMERS are paying you for the use of those pipes?
What's his next step? To charge website owners each time we download content from them?
since i'm paying a monthly fee for them.
Are the bandwidth providers going to start trying to charge different fees depending on what TYPE of data I want to send and receive through the pipe that I AM PAYING FOR?
Data is data.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
But let me point out to you the $60/month I pay for broadband. $40+$20 for a telephone line I never use (thanks to my much better cell phone) because you make it required to have a phone line. So perhaps the check you received from me should ring a bell, mother.
See you've already been paid...
(the truth, it's time for the telcos to realize that "landline phones" are outdated technology and soon will cease to exist and that their true market is in broadband internet connectivity and that they need to add more and more services. OMG...they can't build an infrastructure and sit on their butts for 40 yrs without upgrading technology like they did with "ye ol' telephone". Now they need to re-invest some of the $$$ they earn into new technology so that in 10 yrs my DSL is 10mbit and not 1mbit. OMG....they have to spend money!
- The Saj
Just another example of why I will not use DSL (or the telco for that matter) for broadband access.
we'll be back in the 1950's in no time. Only with MS and AT&T and mega corp x. Kinda reminds me of resident evil.
Only 'flamers' flame!
Does slashdot hate my posts?
1. The majority of lawmakers utilize the internet at home. Many of whom pay attention to the bills they pay at home, even if they are willing to spend 40k on a toilet seat at the office. Most adults do not allow their child to *call* overseas, but would think nothing about allowing them to visit an overseas website. If there were suddenly surcharges for every node hit along the way, the internets usefulness for the majority would suddenly decrease dramatically.
2. The US is not the only country that provides access to (or content on) the internet. Lobbying the US govt. for the right to bill website owners will not fly. If the EEU says "No, we don't agree", what would the US government do in retaliation? Fortunately, congress does not have the power to legislate communication billing methods for the globe.
3. Connection fees are already paid by parties at each end of any transmission. So, technically, there is already a double billing going on. What they are looking for is a third (and fourth and fifth...) helping.
4. Monopolies are illegal in the US (and Canada, and probably most of the other big trade countries. Haven't checked tho). "Ma Bell" will never again be a monopoly. The law isn't the only reason, either. People are more informed today about the impact that monopolies have on prices and availability of service. We expect choice, and will not tolerate a single vendor option.
Because Google, vonage, and others have to pay for their bandwith too.* Everyone's fees pays for access to the Information Superhighway. It doesn't pay for a free Happy Meal at the nearest McDonalds (1).
*Obviously your ISP's fee's not, and judging by the response to advertising here. It never will.
(1) Vonage is a service over and above just driving on the Information Superhighway. Kind of like paying for your package to be shipped via DHL instead of driving it yourself (VOIP can be peer to peer).
In other words there's no such thing as a free lunch.
I think Google and all that dark fiber they are buying is going to soon be a "FUCK YOU" response to this guy. OK, we won't use your pipes! Suck on this... get on the web with free WiFi via google.
Note to self: Sell all SBC and T stock. I'd wondered if T would climb to SBC valuations or vice versa. This toxic rube just answered my question fairly clearly: he has NO idea what is going on in the industry. He's like some halfwit lovechild of Michael Eisner and Darth McBride.
A hint to Mr. WitLacker: Due to overbuilding that was done by SBC and others during the dot-com years, dark fiber is still stupid cheap. Now, if you want to strip money from google, you'll have to ruin your own market among other customers, since I can imagine a dozen tricks ranging from buying up existing contracts to teaming with owners of existing contracts to upgrade endpoints to increase per-fiber bandwidth. Your own client base is in a position to compete with you if you get greedy.
Or Google can short-circuit past you by renting/leasing dark fiber and buying their own endpoints. And anywhere you've got a rock-solid monopoly, they can explore stopgaps like microwave. In a phrase, you can't put this genie back into a monopoly bottle, no matter how hard you try.
Next, I'm not sure how you plan to detect which endpoints are google's, or how you intend to increase charges to those endpoints without getting excessive on all other datapoints, given the rather ambiguous nature of data packets. But, if you are able to differentiate the data, all Google has to do is refuse to pay. Every time you block a paying customer from reaching Google, you'll be drowned in loud screams. After questioning your parentage, customers will insist someone's in of breach of contract (either you or google) and since they don't pay google for access, They'll blame you. If you try to shift the blame to google, we all *know* who'll win those legal/PR battles.
This isn't your grandma's ol' monopoly: for every tactic you can think of, the data infrastructure (which is what geeks like me consider the REAL internet) is creating alternatives. And every time you squeeze, you'll lose PR and goodwill and customers. You'll piss off shareholders. You'll piss off techies (ask your canine mom, Darth McBride about the wisdom of doing that). Oh, and the state public-utility regulatory commissions: act like a monopoly and various state legislatures and their consituents will shove your sorry ass deep into regulatory hell: imagine a world where the regulators deem that dark fiber will be repriced downward until it is fully utilized.
Isn't it the customers that purchased the broadband allowed to use the services that they want without strings or having to pay for services because they want a kick back on both ends?
(continuing story)
Mr. Witacre then proceeded to spit tobaccie into a spitoon, grab a shotgun, and head off into the Kentucky mountains to "hunt him some 'coons."
Honestly, can you REALLY believe the rantings of a corporate spokesperson who uses the word "ain't?"
Synchronous means that the two bit streams (sender and receiver) are synchronized, so there's no necessity for breaking everything into bytes with start and stop bits.
Symmetric, which is what you were actually refering to (as was the GP) is where one side is capable of transmitting at a faster bit rate than the other side.
Nowadays, most serial modems simulate asynchronous operation at the RS232 port, but transmit data as LAPM packets over a synchronous connection, under V42 and its successors.
Asymmetry in modems predates V34 BTW. There were a myriad of 9600+bps modems made in the mid-eighties where one side was clearly faster than the other, as modem manufacturers adopted various proprietary ways to squeeze more and more bandwidth out of the phone lines.
In terms of ITU standards, the V23 standard (1200bps from content provider to you, 75bps back) was very popular in some parts of Europe, notably Britain where it was the basis for BT's Prestel system. Very suspectable to line noise, but it generally worked, and, being frequency modulated like V21, was cheap to implement with the techologies of the time.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Here at the Phone Company we handle eighty-four billion calls a year. Serving everyone from presidents and kings to scum of the earth. (snort) We realize that every so often you can't get an operator, for no apparent reason your phone goes out of order [snatches plug out of switchboard], or perhaps you get charged for a call you didn't make. We don't care. Watch this [bangs on a switch panel like a cheap piano] just lost Peoria. (snort) You see, this phone system consists of a multibillion-dollar matrix of space-age technology that is so sophisticated, even we can't handle it. But that's your problem, isn't it? Next time you complain about your phone service, why don't you try using two Dixie cups with a string. We don't care. We don't have to. (snort) We're the Phone Company!
http://www.tvacres.com/comm_ernestine.htm
The guy who supplies a cable to your house has fixed costs and variable costs associated with supplying it.
The fixed costs are the physical line, maintenance, exchange equipment etc.
The variable costs are basically the calls, or are they? It costs them a fixed amount for the infrastructure to enable you to make calls. Once the mainly fixed costs of providing the infrastructure is met then profit starts. I know this is a simplistic description but it mostly hold water. So in effect the business is built around mainly fixed costs.
However if you take away the revenue associated with the making of calls then something has to give to meet these costs which remain largely the same.
This can either be reduced profit, reduced costs or an increase in the fixed charge.
Reducing profit is something companies are unlikely to want to do. In SBC's case their profit $1.2 billion from $10.3 billion represents 11% profit. Not bad and they can afford to lose some from that. But get much below say 6-7% and alarm bells will start ringing. Not least they won't be keen on investing speculative money on a high risk, low margin business like say next gen. ADSL.
Reducing costs. I dare say there could be some of this going on in a business of this size but after not too long they would have to reduce their infrastructure costs. And reducing infrastructure costs would eventually mean reducing service.
The third option is to move the fixed costs onto the fixed costs the customer pays. IE The line rental and the Broadband supply.
Doubtless there are other ways of looking at it but any way must address the issue of fixed costs being paid for.
...pass to the right.
This is sure to set off a firestorm of US bashing, but the first thing that came to mind when I read this quote today was the interest in the UN and/or EU in wresting "control" of the internet from the hands of the US. Is this the type of thing we would see if these other parties gained control of the root servers? Pay up or no DNS for you??
Only in that case you (as a consumer) wouldn't have the option of punishing them for this outrageous behavior with your pocketbook by switching to another provider. You would just have to a) hope that the service provider (Google, Yahoo, whomever) would pay the piper; or b) you might simply be stuck if the service/information you wanted to access was deemed unacceptable and therefore all access to it via DNS was eliminated. (Hopefully you could root out [forgive the pun, I had to do it] the IP address on your own or you would REALLY be out of luck)...
All your pipes are belong to us!!!
We swtiched over to SBC for our landline to save a few bucks a month, because we're in a multi-provider dead zone where I live out in the 'burbs of the 'burbs (plus, my wife hates cell phones). I tried to sign up with DSL from SBC at the same time as the landline signup - they don't run DSL to my address. Nobody does. (Well, Speakeasy managed to find someone to do it back in the dot-com daze, but it was over $100 a month for 144k IDSL, and my work covered the bill.)
So I can safely say to Mr. Dinosaur at SBC - I'll never pay to download stuff over your pipes! You can't make me! Ha ha ha!
Come to the University of Mars! Classes starting soon!
Every time Ed or his Verizon equivalent gives a free-wheeling interview, the corporate PR types spend the next few days issuing retractions and clarifications ... you can't
take what these guys say in the newspaper
as anything but stream-of-consciosuness.
Sort of like a football player talking in the
locker room to the press after a game ...
Consumers and market forces will eventually rectify any knuckleheaded notions SBC (Satanic Bastard Company) has about charging for access both ways.
For instance, they could be sued for misrepresenting what they are selling. It's not internet access they are selling but some lame boiled down "SBC approved only" access.
Consumers of thier product will soon realize that they can either buy SBC "internet" access or some real ISP access from someone else.
All RBOCs suck donkey balls anyway - they just flail harder and harder as they drown... I admit, its fun to watch!
---- "Logoff! That cookie shit makes me nervous!" - A. Soprano
I'm sure all the other tier 1 Internet carriers will also be highly interested to learn that SBC does not support peering and holds that they have no peers. If those aren't peer-to-peer connections, then SBC is using other carriers to transport packets, which means SBC owes a lot of companies a lot of money.
In this day and age, there isn't much an individual can do against something the size of SBC. In the days of Usenet, you could at least lobby for that segment of the net to be de-peered (Comcast was the last company to suffer the humiliation) but I'm not sure enough people still use it (or even know what Usenet is) for that to make much of an impact today. With no IT union and no real collective power (libertarians may want to start reconsidering) there is no voice for the individual. It's not as if you can use some other service, since ALL Internet providers will ultimately either buy from SBC or peer with them. If you use the Internet, you use their service, you have no choice. Because source-based routing has long-since been stopped, if SBC wants to route your traffic, your traffic WILL obey. YOU don't get a choice.
This is one time a Government-run monopoly isn't such a bad thing. You can at least vote them out of power. You can't vote SBC out of anything. Geeks are voiceless and powerless - largely by their own choice - and are now being hijacked by a power-crazed money-hungry CEO. And I'm not convinced there's a damn thing anyone can do about it. Especially as megacorps tend to have politicians all bought up and packaged.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
All this stuff about broadband and Google is chump change. Why aren't the shareholders of SBC demanding a stop to the free ride for Domino's and Dell and all the other businesses using SBC's phone lines to support their business models? SBC has made a considerable investment in those lines and they have to have a return on it. Do these freeloaders think phone service comes free?
>there's going to have to be some mechanism for these people who use these pipes to pay for the portion they're using. >Why should they be allowed to use my pipes?'." They should be able to use your pipes because I'm paying you forty friggin dollars a month for the use of your pipes so I can get to their service. sheesh
I wonder if this fellow has thought this through. If he managed to force Google, Vonage, et al to pay him fees, then they would have to pass those fees on to their customers. A large percent of those customers would then no longer be customers ... and then why would they need broadband? In a lame effort to goose revenue on one end he will dramatically reduce revenue on the other end. This all brings to mind an old saying: "cut off your nose to spite your face."
The more you regulate a company, the worse its products become.
Quoth Metcalfe, when asked whether the old Bell telcos were evil or just stupid, "Why does it have to be one or the other? They're both."
This is an example of why competition IS NEEDED in broadband access. There are 2 ways into houses - through the phone company or the cable company. (Yes, you can argue about wireless and others, but they have nowhere near the penetration). If cable Internet did not exist. SBC and the remaining RBOCs could get away with these schemes.
I'm really confused now. When did Edgar Bronfman become CEO of SBC?
Didn't the U.S. government pay for the "pipes" already with our TAX DOLLARS? Our tax dollars were used over decades to build up the phone systems infrastructure. Why should we pay for them again. I say the U.S. government should just take the pipes back and grant equal access to them, everyone pays the same for access. Then let companies compete.
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
People are already paying to drive on the road. Now the owner wants the car companies to give him money.
English is easier said than done.
"In order for Cingular to do good, it's going to want to utilize everything that it can." "Now what they would like to do is use my pipes free, but I ain't going to let them do that because we have spent this capital and we have to have a return on it." I think Mr. Whitacre needs to improve his grammar. However, judging by some of his comments from the article, poor grammar may be the least of his problems. Sheesh, how'd this guy get to be CEO of a publicly traded company?
"The words 'buggy whip manufacturer' spring immediately to mind."
Another phrase springs to mind.
"When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail"
The problem with your phrase is that you admit that the phone company has a foot in BOTH broadband AND phone service. The buggy whip manufacturers didn't have a foot in BOTH buggy whips AND car manufacturing.
Plus as already been pointed out previously. The Internet still hasn't reached the reliability of the phone network. And last for completeness sake. Most phone companies have a stake in the cellular market as well. So no they aren't "buggy whip" manufacturers, no matter how much you all torture that metaphor.
"Your man here runs a phone company. His customers pay him for voice service, and also he gets paid by broadband providers for the right to run internet connections over the same line (or possibly he sells broadband himself - I don't know exactly how it's done in this particular case)."
The voice network and the broadband network represent different technologies at the last mile point, even if the rest of it is digital (and not all digital is alike, ATM versus packet based).
Didn't Mebtal/Haw River Communicatons already try to block VOIP from their network and get sued for doing it? I believe the matter went to the courts and the ruling was in favor of the consumer. From the Mebtel Form 10-K filed with the SEC: [quote] he emerging technology known as VOIP can be used to carry user-to-user voice communications over broadband or dial-up service. The FCC has ruled that some VOIP arrangements are not regulated as telecommunications services, but that a conventional telephone service that uses Internet protocol in its backbone is a telecommunications service. The FCC has initiated a proceeding to review the regulatory status of VOIP services and the possible application of various regulatory requirements to VOIP providers, including the payment of access charges. On March 3, 2005, our subsidiary, Madison River Communications, LLC, entered into a consent decree with the FCC on behalf of itself, Madison River Telephone and the affiliated companies under the common control and ownership of Madison River Telephone. The purpose of the consent decree was to resolve an investigation by the Enforcement Bureau of the FCC into allegations that the subject companies were blocking ports used for VOIP applications, thereby affecting customers' ability to use VOIP through one or more VOIP service providers. Under the terms of the consent decree, we agreed to pay $15,000.00 and that we shall not block ports used for VOIP applications or otherwise prevent customers from using VOIP applications. Expanded use of VOIP technology instead of traditional wireline communications could reduce the access revenues received by local exchange carriers like us. [/quote]
All users better shut up and respect the Executive's decision and viewpoints. Remember, executives especially CEO's are to be respected and liked. They represent Society's views. Badmouthing executives will not be tolerated ! Remember, executives are positions of authority and will be respected.
Corporate America reigns supreme !
He's saying "Google would like it if we, as an ISP, provided free service, but we won't". I'm not sure why this is an interesting comment...
Sadly, you have no idea what you are talking about.
You are a developer.
I'm a prospective home owner.
I buy a home in your community. You maintain a private road to my community. You advertise your road as my pathway to the rest of the road system.
I agree with this, and pay you on a monthly basis for usage of this road. We sign an agreement limiting the speed and amount of usage, and I begin to pay you monthly.
You then notice that I order pizza on a weekly basis, and decide to go after the pizza company for delivering pizzas, and UPS for delivering packages. Obviously, they shouldn't be make money off your road.
Problem is, it's not the pizza company, or UPS, using the road. It's me using the service I've already _paid_ for under an arrangement that we've already agreed upon. I'm not overusing the road; I'm not running semi-trucks repeatedly, nor am I causing a traffic problem. All I'm doing is utilizing the _access_ to my home that I've already paid for. You advertised my road _service_ as allowing me to connect to the rest of the road system. You placed no stipulations on the who's allowed to drive, or what kind of vehicle. Merely that I was not allowed more than a certain amount of traffic, nor allowed to travel at above a certain speed.
You just see an additional opportunity to make a cash, and as such, try to renegotiate your agreement. Thankfully, in the internet world, SBC's line is not the only road I can ride upon.
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
... he didn't pay for his pipes -- the American taxpayers did. It's amazing the selective memory of the Ma Bells on this topic. Those pipes were largely bought and paid for with tax dollars to build infrastructure necessary to drive the US economy. So, Buster, those are MY (and roughly 300 other US taxpayers) pipes, and I want them open and free to continue doing what we intended them to when we paid billions of dollars for them -- provide a robust infrastructure as a foundation to the US economy. Vonage and Google are simply doing what we intended to do when we paid you to lay the line.
Sit down, shut up, and do what we paid you to do, Jackass. Damn, government workers are so hard to fire.
Monopoly: Noun. Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service
Notice that the definition of the word doe not define the region in which a monopoly occurs. A monopoly doesn't have to be total control of the industry, it can occur in smaller amounts where customers are limited to a single provider.
In most areas you have only a single choice for cable. There might be other companies in the area but your house/apartment/neighborhood will only be wired for one. A dish doesnt count as an option because i want the reliability of cable. Comcast has exclusive control over cable service in my apartment complex.
...in response to: Even old-fashion dial-up's been asymmetric since the beginning.
...you said: The first commercial modems [1962] were 300bps and were synchronous. As were all the subsequent modems through 28.8k. It wasn't until the 33.6k modems [and accompanying dial-up access] started being asynchronous. [33.6down, 28.8 up]. And of course the 56k modems were as well.
Aren't you confusing asymmetric with asynchronous?
I used both synchronous 4800bps modems at the office (branch to branch) as well as async 300 baud modems for BBS connection at home back in the early 80s. Or am I confused?
What "balkanization of the internet" means?
"Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
anyone else think that SBC CEO Edward Witacre sounds a lot like L. Bob Rife from Snow Crash?
We have to buy all these trucks, and pay drivers for all of these routes. Then these companies come along, and they decide that they can use OUR infrastructure to send THEIR packages. Our service is intended only for sending postcards to granny. If those companies want to use OUR service to facilitate THEIR business, then they better pay m/e/ /a/ /k/i/c/k/b/a/c/k/ us for the priviledge of using our facilities.
Lately it's even come to my attention that people and even businesses in FOREIGN COUNTRIES can send mail through our system. If they don't pay up, we're going to start burning their packages for heating fuel.
Verizon has started to move their customers to fiber right to the premises, and when they do, they move your POTS line to fiber as well (although they don't tell you that very much). They're equipped to offer TV service through this same fiber, although they currently lack regulatory compliance.
Between their EVDO service and fiber, they've turned the tables on the cable companies and gone from irrelevant to the top in a space of just 2-3 years. Verizon, for all the complaints against them is actually competing and not whining. At least not yet.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
Ok so I was about to post a gut response and then I went back to RTFA and thought it through again...
:)
Let's try the legacy Ma Bell perspective:
You make a phone call to Joe. You initiated the transaction but both you and Joe pay for access to the network. Even further, in the wireless phone world both you and Joe likely pay per minute for the call.
Now let's try a cable perspective:
You want subscribers who will pay a monthly access fee. To get them, you need the best available content. You MUST get networks such as ESPN, CNN, ABC, NBC, MTV, etc. into your content package. You don't charge ESPN for access to your "network"...
Similarly, newspapers:
You need subscribers. You pay content creators (reporters, comic authors, etc.) for the content necessary to attract and retain subscribers.
It seems the battle is which model does the data backbone (the Internet, if you will) fall into? Is it simply a network by which people and organizations can communicate with no guarantee or claims as to the quality of that content (a la the phone network) or are you selling end-subscriber access to a content service (a la cable TV or newspaper)?
I think for SBC the answer is "yes". It's both. They have end customers who want access to the Internet FOR the content that's there. They also have customers who just want a communications network for data. Here is another way to look at the power of the organizations involved:
Could a major Internet content/service provider (Google, CNN, Apple iTunes, Yahoo, etc.) approach a network provider (SBC, Comcast, AOL, etc.) and threaten to cut off those network's subscribers unless the network provider PAYS them for their content?
This would be the true coup de etat in the industry. When a single content or service source becomes so demanded by end consumers that it MUST be available on your network to keep those subscribers. I don't know that any website is yet that important... Maybe Windows Update could be, if anyone used it.
Come play Moral Decay!
I remember the noble "Fibre-to-the curb" promises made 15 years ago. Where's my fsking fiber to the curb? I moved into a new neighborhood about 6 years ago and suffered with a crappy dialup that would never go faster than 28k because cheap-ass SBC had my whole neighborhood multiplexed back to the central office. No DSL, no 56k. Screw them. Even Comcast cable, who I really *don't* have a problem with is better.
"Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
Don't forget that much of that money was funneled back into research. Much of it was basic research that had no immediately obvious benefit but which often laid the groundwork for staggering improvements.
Can you say the transistor?
Can you say Unix?
On the scientific side, can you say "microwave background radiation"?
Plus countless other things that have slipped my mind at the moment.
One guess how much money is funneled into applied research today, much less basic research.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
Yeah, it's really humorous to see the old "Bell's" struggle with the new paradigm much like the RIAA. How long before we get sued for using VoIP?
With Skype to Skype calls the information is encrypted. What I want to know is, can it still be detected as VOIP traffic at this point?
Life is not for the lazy.
He's absolutely right. His company spends billions to invest in infrastructure, and he has a right to profit on that investment. And with that kind of 19th century thinking, SBC will be deeper in the hole at the end of this fiscal year than they were last fiscal year. Expect innovative communications companies to make his fiber lines obsolete. He can put that in his pipe and smoke it.
I assume they are talking about VOIP? I hadn't heard Google was interested in that. Maybe they are just talking about any internet use? Either way, the CUSTOMER is the one using the pipe, not the service the customer is contacting. If you want to limit the bandwidth or services your own customers can use their internet connections for, I guess that is up to you. They usually have the choice of going with a different internet provider. How exactly do you plan to make Google or Vonage pay for YOUR customers using THEIR broadband connections? Legislation? I wouldn't be surprised if it got passed with your deep pockets and campaign contributions...
It's my understanding that Google has been purchasing unused fiber lines all across the US. They're seting up large wirless networks in major cities. So it's my understanding that google will eventually be a free ISP with local targeted advertising as a revenue stream and run the wholse thing on their own Network. Eventually they'll be able to offer On Deman TV, VoIP, and other services bypassing the Cable and phone companies. If this is true, bye bye SBC.. Hello Comcast competition..
Grab a map, and ask your question again. WiFi (technological solution) isn't a substitute for a social solution. Everything said so far in reply to the story is either complaining or expecting technology to magically solve all problems. I've yet to hear someone suggest that they go out into daylight and actually start meeting decision makers. This is one of the times were the geeks anti-social nature works against them.
My outbound port 25 is already blocked and I'm forced to use the "free" mail servers instead of my own mail servers with my host provider. They implemented this without pre-notice. People complained, nothing changed, and SBC is still happily selling a service that sounds like your getting the "whole internet".
They get past the "bait" laws with the fine print that few people read before making a purchase, including the end user license agreement that'll likely piss you off if you read all of it. I doubt these large companies would allow something as obvious as a bait law slip through legal. The only repercussion that SBC will likely need to consider is whether their customer base will accept this type of treatment or not; it's not likely that enough people will understand what they are missing or being denied to make a difference (I hope I'm wrong).
Simple. If Google sees YOUR ISP's customers try to use their services (Search, Earth, Maps, Froogle, anything), it can inform them of how greedy you are, and of what alternatives they have in the area. Besides, Google's been going around buying up dark fibre for some time now, so hold on to that last shred of relevance while it lasts.
I, for one, have long ago given up on land-line phone service. The only thing it's cost me, besides a phone bill, is the ability to initially configure a Tivo.
The REAL jabber has the user id: 13196
What you do today will cost you a day of your life
SSL the IP connection, then they're screwed.
Hey, I'm just your average shit and piss factory.
I don't get too concerned about these Tier 1s complaining and threatening. The way I see it, the groundwork for making them null and void has already been laid. So they turn off a pipe or two, even some big ones.. The technology to recreate them, or to go around them, is not nearly as expensive as it used to be, and is far more prevelent, and needed much more than it was when they first laid it in. I can't think of many scenarios where the internet user community will not find a way to "make it work". Google and MS are pushing wireless meshing.. Networks can exist in topologies that don't require backbones. Anyone who's ever used amateur packet radio networks know its not really rocket science.. I'm pretty sure that somewhere people could dig up open, standardized protocols for packet switching and transmission control and things like that (sarcasm). Possibly even freely available software to make it work. (more sarcasm). Its just the same thing as the DRM situation.. they come up with a new method, two weeks later someone has a workaround. If they start turning off the "pipes", people will just build "pipes" around them. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out to be quite beneficial in the long run, sparking interest and development into a "people's" infrastructure that was fault tollerant and cheaper than current solutions. The resulting development might even bring the price down for getting "pipes" to developing areas and help them bootstrap themselves into the digital world. Its so clear.. Its almost as if the underlying technology the internet uses was *designed* to allow people to join unlike networks together and route packets as they needed.. (whump)
> Now what they would like to do is use my pipes free, but I
> ain't going to let them do that because we have spent this
> capital and we have to have a return on it. So there's going
> to have to be some mechanism for these people who use these
> pipes to pay for the portion they're using. Why should they
> be allowed to use my pipes?'
OK so in this world of senders and receivers both paying we will need a balance and the pipe operators will have to pay the content owner for the copyright license to transmit the content over their pipes as it does involve copying at every router, etc.
It doesn't much matter what the content is. We'll need to develop a method to charge for it in balance.
or
"don't pay the ferryman till he gets you to the other side"
Said Bubba "HogLeg" James, upon hearing this news.
I don't know if anyone else has pointed this out, but I believe what he is talking about is VoIP and not content. Since VoIP is becoming the big thing now days they, the telcos, need to find some way to charge for other companies running VoIP over their pipes or they will become obsolete. Or so they think. Take a power outage and VoIP is useless.
There are two major products that come out of Berkeley: LSD and BSD. We don't believe this to be a coincidence.
Could somebody explain to me how a guy who doesn't understand the Internet got to run a telecommunications company?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
In a free market system the consumer chooses what they will pay for, and the onus is on the company to make the numbers work. If they cannot, they go under.
I can't emphasize this enough--uncompetitive companies must go under for the free market to operate efficiently. Propping up an aging, uncompetitive company hurts consumers--through poor service, high prices, and slowed economic growth.
In point of fact there might not BE any way for SBC to reconcile their fixed costs and the new consumer expectations of fixed connectivity pricing. So be it--that's life.
SBC/AT&T could go under tomorrow and the world would go on. Either: they would declare bankruptcy and write off debt and renegotiate union contracts, thereby lowering fixed costs, OR some other more competitive company would purchase their assets, employees, and customer lists, and provide service more efficiently. It would messy for a while, but when is any change neat, even if it's badly needed?
SBC/AT&T is welcome to do their best to get return on their investment. But the burden is on them to make it work, not on us.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
The phrase is "puff puff give", you insensitive clod.
Remember that what's inside of you doesn't matter because nobody can see it.
"So?"
Cable companies have them. We have them. Now what they would like to do is use my pipes free, but I ain't going to let them do that because we have spent this capital and we have to have a return on it. So there's going to have to be some mechanism for these people who use these pipes to pay for the portion they're using. Why should they be allowed to use my pipes?'."
1) Your pipe were paid for by tax dollars; did you forget that you were subsidized by the governement for about 100 years (aka my tax dollars).
2) People are paying access charges to connect to the backbone. Here in Illinois it is:
10 South Canal in chicago. Unless you start charging for the incoming phone call; your price has been paid. Now the case slightly differs for inbound and outbound calls when it comes to the PSTN. Don't like it; raise the access charges. The VOIP companies have also paid interconnect charges as well as charges for sharing network access for inbound and outbound calls.
Your practice of tag'ng packets with lower priority and degrading VOIP service is obnoxious.
Love,
A former Ameritech, MCI, WorldCom, SBC telecom engineer. And yes, I worked for each of these companies at different times.
Maybe because the more compelling bandwidth-intensive apps there are, the more demand there will be for bandwidth (i.e. "your pipes")?
Vonage isn't stealing from you, they are selling your product! You can't use Vonage without a broadband connection. And if customers get used to running several apps like Vonage, they'll find that they have saturated their cheap $19.99/month DSL plan, which means they'll start wanting to bump up to the pricier plans.
Nothing sells a platform like apps, and if you're the phone company or the cable company, you're the platform. You want to encourage the growth of these apps, not shut them down.
Read my blog.
Why should they freely facilitate their own demise?
How is this going to happen? Are they giving away for free access to the pipelines? Google and Yahoo! don't pay for their pipelines?
FalconShould there be a Law?
Dear Dipwad:
I am already paying to use your pipes.
signed,
SBC DSL Customer
What I believe he is referring to is the big folks using existing SBC facilities ( ergo fiber and transmission equipment ) to connect ' their ' customers to the internet backbone via SBC owned systems. Nothing is really changing here except SBC no longer has to provide a ' discount ' to competition to utilize SBC lines.
Initially, that was the agreement in order to allow competition to get their foot in the door without requiring them to build a network of their own before they did. Hehe, it's somewhat expensive to build a network without a LOT of upfront capitol. However, most didn't bother to build any network at all of any kind and simply resold SBC pipes to end customers via a middleman setup. If something broke, you called them, they called SBC. SBC folks worked on and fixed problem, reseller contacts customer telling them problem is fixed, customer is happy. Don't think it stopped there. SBC runs data through other carriers ( Sprint comes to mind ) as well and occasionally Customer A's data goes to reseller B's service that travels SBC pipes which are muxed into really BIG pipes going through Sprint owned systems. It's a never-ending middleman game.
Project Lightspeed is designed to compete with the cable companies. It will, theoretically, provide phone, TV and broadband via fiber straight to the home. Assuming you live in a newer home, neighborhood ( read that expensive home ) that will attract customers that don't mind paying the prices SBC will charge for it. For that reason alone, I don't think it will keep pace with cable since cable pretty much goes everywhere and not just the rich neighborhoods. Of course the big money is providing business with this kind of service and not really the end users like you or I. We stand up and start yelling about something broken and we get ignored. Let a company like Shell Oil or Fingers Furniture or *insert your typical mega-sized business here* and things start happening. Executive level management starts getting involved and general chaos ensues until the problem is resolved. You think the aforementioned businesses have to deal with a thirty level call tree to report a problem ? HA, you keep thinking that
There are not many companies out there that can provide the ' upstarts ' with the dark fiber they would like to have. Most of it is / was owned by they big gorillas in the market, so technically they'll still have to pay for it. Only difference is they will have to provide their own transport equipment to get it from point A to point B.
You are correct about the ' floundering for cash '. Seems like SBC is trying to cut costs in any way / shape / form they can. Once the acquisition of ATT is done, rumors have the IT department taking a ten percent hit across the board. Of course to those who don't make eighty million a year ( like the hanchos ) it makes more sense to trim the excess from the top than it does the bottom, but then, this is an American company and they just don't think like that
Lastly, the rumor mill puts Ed retiring soon. Very soon. Once that happens it is also the rumor that the former CEO of ATT will be the new zookeeper in the gorilla cage. That and the fact that SBC will be adopting the ATT logo / name begs the question: Who really bought whom ?
http://research.microsoft.com/mesh/ Got an Windows XP PC and a wireless card? Join the mesh. Lets make a shore to shore wireless mesh from house to house, from school to school, from library to library, from cafe to cafe. Manifest Destiny. Let it spread all across the land becaues the air waves belong to US. An Internet that is in the air between us all. We dont need SBC. We dont need Comcast. They wasted their money on the land lines. It is time for Americans to stop selling our birth rights!
Somehow, the following G.I. Jane dialogue seemed apropos (give or take a few modifications to the words:
SBC Board of Directors: Did you just have a brain fart, Lieutenant?
SBC CEO Edward Witacre: Begging your pardon, sir?
SBC Board of Directors: Did you just waltz in here and bark at your commanding officer? Because if you did, I would call that a bona fide brain fart, and I resent it when people FART inside my office!
SBC CEO Edward Witacre: I think you've resented me from the start, sir.
SBC Board of Directors: What I resent, Lieutenant, is some politician using my base as a test tube for her grand social experiment. What I resent, is the sensitivity training that is now mandatory for all of my men. The ob-gyn I now have to keep on staff just to keep track of your personal pap smears. But most of all what I resent, is your perfume, however subtle, interfering with the scent of my fine three-dollar-and-seventy-nine-cent cigar, which I will put out this instant if the phallic nature of it happens to offend your GODDAMN FRAGILE SENSIBILITIES! Does it?
SBC CEO Edward Witacre: No, sir.
SBC Board of Directors: "No, sir" WHAT?
SBC CEO Edward Witacre: The shape doesn't bother me. Just the goddamn sweet stench.
'A lie if repeated often enough, becomes the truth.' - Goebbels
Let me get this straight...do these fat CEO salaries also count as investment? If so, I'm not paying for it. You spent the money, you squandared it, now you want protection so you can continue to milk the average home user? Go suck an egg.
Last I heard, Steve Jobs was a fruitarian, which pretty much rules out either of those pass times...
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Google search "failure", the top result speaks for itself
yeah it means that blogs poison google and should be removed.
Add enough lag to make a small dejitter delay(smoothing the inter-arrival time of voice packets) unpractical, and the FPS crowd will feel the problems too. That makes two user groups who think your service is shitty.
The price in terms of reputation might become too high to make this a good idea.
C - the footgun of programming languages
http://www.locustworld.com/ built on purely Open Source, deployed even in the US! (where you wouldn't think the monopolies would not allow it, like they won't allow muni wifi...)
So imagine a bunch of these locustworld meshes connected to a google fiber connection point and people are able to for free or some minimal googlebuck charge...
What a lot of the last mile carriers like the Ma Bells are doing is redesigning how they prioritize traffic.
Most carriers are in the process of using or migrating to a enhanced IP or MPLS platform to carry all IP related traffic to include traditional ISP, Business VPN, and VoIP traffic.
These networks usually have 4 priority fields using either Difserv or Precedence markings. They range from a real-time queue to best effort.
Right now, most of these guys are looking at a fifth queue to dump peering traffic into and also to outright lower the priority queue for RTP(VoIP)traffic not off their VoIP platform. This queue would be even lower quality then the carriers Best Effort queue.
When it's all said and done, I think the FCC will rule that RTP can not be blocked(as they fined Madison River for doing so already) and can not be re-tagged. Carriers will get around this by giving RTP traffic not off their platform the lowest priority when they form the header or label for delivery through their network without modifying the original Difserv code point.
What we will start seeing is priority peering arrangements between carriers to assure the traditional carriers RTP traffic but not the content only guys like Vonage.
So the end user has two options here, one is to purchase the carriers service or pay an additional fee for traffic prioritization if it is offered. Right now, everyone either pays for best effort only or best effort with a guaranteed bit rate. What you cant get yet, as a residential user, is guaranteed jitter and latency SLA which you need for voice quality over 4 MOS without using the carriers platforms.
Indeed. Modded down as troll, eh? I'm 44 years old and co-opped at Bell Labs before my EE days, and then I did the MBA route. My comments were absolutely candid; no trolling. I'll wager I was modded down by somebody under the age of 30, who really doesn't know what was, before ... I've lived it, in my life experience, up close, both ways. The old way was WAS better!
I'd gladly go back to paying 20 cents a minute for long distance, if I knew the profits would go to fund private R&D like they did up until 1984.
PS: no Luddite here ... I have Vonage (it sucks), I have Skype (ditto), I have Ubuntu (now, THAT'S good, but, it has roots at Bell Labs!), I build stuff from scratch (using semiconductors developed you-know-where) encased in durable plastics (ditto).
Bellsouth makes me pay for phone and DSL service. I never use my land line as I don't use the phone much anyway. Most calls I receive are on my nextel. Since it just became available, both my father and I are going to drop our accounts with Bellsouth and go with cable modems and Vonage. Unless Comcast uses Bellsouth's network, I really don't see how any company charging VoIP users a fee would profit when they could just use a cable network.
Chewbacon
The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
sounds like this guy should really lay off the pipe for a while...
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
SBC is not saying that they'll block websites or parts of the internet. At least, not in this interview they're not.
SBC is saying that they won't provide access to their "last leg" networks for free. As in, Google can't sell broadband service in West L.A. without paying some fee to SBC for the privilege of using the wires that SBC installed and is responsible for maintaining.
The real underlying issue is who decides how much SBC and other broadband hardware owners can charge broadband resellers for the use of their network. SBC would like to charge broadband resellers (including Google) at least as much as they directly charge to consumers so that the resellers can't compete with SBC in the broadband market. The resellers obviously want a price large enough to make a buck of their own (free would be great).
This is where the FCC has been tasked to find a balance. Unfortunately for consumers, their balance has shifted towards SBC and Verizon away from AOL, Earthlink, and Google broadband.
Regards,
Ross
Uhhhh, just a guess, but maybe because your customers are paying you to supply that pipe? You're charging customers for internet access, now you want to charge providers for delivering the content?
Lots of luck with that. But he sure has some Darl McBride size balls for trying.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
I read the original article in IEEE, and am more than a little curious about it. They seem to claim/imply that they can handle even encrypted data streams. I'm wondering whether it's a statistical filter: whether they're just imposing some sort of packet speed limit and if a stream between X and Y with packet header Z has more than that rate they start randomly deleting packets. I don't see how else they could do this -- but then again, they've been working on it for seven years. If you have any idea, I'd love to know about it.
Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
Give it a few years, wireless will do anything your "pipes" do, moron.
And it won't be owned by you, it will be owned by Google.
Have a nice day, dinosaur.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Hardly. Being a monopoly is perfectly legal. What a company cannot legally do is use its status as a monopoly to expand its market or otherwise restrict trade in an anticompetitive fashion.
The Baby Bells are still monopolies. How many choices do I have in what company will hook up the land line at my house? But they cannot use their monopolies in local phone service to control the market for long distance service.
Globalstar has low earth orbit satellites that handle satellite phone calls. The ping times are much better than geostationary satellites but bandwidth is low (10Kbits/s) right now. Expect that to change if the guys with "pipes" start blocking VOIP. In fact, maybe Google's NASA partnership has something to do with this. Worldwide free WIFI would probably be a good thing considering the fact that the internet is restricted by most dictators in countries synonymous with terrorism.
What if Digg added local news and a Slashdot inspired comment karma system? ---
http://houndwire.com
Interesting how this is being compared to Ma Bell (AT&T), being SBC (owner of Cingular), bought AT&T and plans to rename itself to AT&T. Would be funny if they were officially called AT&T by the time the new lawsuits started.
Maybe we'll see Xerox come up with a new GUI pretty soon too...
Whenever anyone lays down copper wire, fiber-optic or pipes, the city will charge a "right of way" for use of the land and cost of restoring the strip of land use (such as digging up and re-paving a street). For most public utilities, this "right of way" cost is lower then for other businesses that seek to get the same rights. The idea is that the public utility disrupts the land used once and then other bussinesses should tap into the public utility. So, rather than a security monitoring company laying down it's own copper wires, they get dry (without dial tone) pairs of copper from the public utility. The FCC used to acknowledge the phone company's roll as a public utility by requiring that copper pairs be provided at cost. The CEO of SBC has since convinced the FCC that a tele-co should not be treated as a public utility and be able to use practices which reduce the public access to the infrastructure that SBC has gotten to build at a discounted right-of-way cost.
So, while he argues that other businesses should be required to pay for his pipe since they are competing businesses. He also still promotes municipal discounts on right-of-way as if he still runs a public utility. And he still promotes that other bussinesses should be pushed to use his pipes instead of being able to get right-of-way at a similar cost. So, for example, to run fiber optic between two buildings in down town Chicago would cost a non-profit University ten times as much as what SBC was charged. Hence, there is incentive to go with SBC for the fiber optic link. Arrangements are made in Feb 2005 for SBC "GigaMAN" service to be put in at June of 2005. Guess what still isn't in place?
Cities need to acknowledge that SBC is neither a public utility or has the public interest in mind for sharing right of way. As a non-public utility, SBC should pay the same exact price for municipal right of way as everyone else and refund the tax payers for the con of getting discounted right of way in the past as if they would operate as a public utility.
Of course, SBC's CEO will never come out and promote that SBC should pay it's fair share for right of way, just that other businesses should have to pay their fair share to SBC while the tax payer gets robbed by a company that is not a public utility but continues demanding discounts from cities as if they are.
Symmetric, which is what you were actually refering to (as was the GP) is where one side is capable of transmitting at the same bit rate as the other side.
I find it interesting reading all the comments about "Well...if they do that then change providers" as if EVERYBODY as multiple broadband providers.
FACT:
The Majority of DSL/Broadband users have one and ONLY one provider available to them. Cable and DSL co-exist ONLY within short distance of CO office facilities. Beyond the DSL length restriction Cable modems are practically (don't start on high latency satelight) the only game in town. If Adelphia decided to block google there is not a damn thing I could do about it besides paying to provision a data line to my house. DSL really is'nt deployed on back roads beyond major metro areas.
I agree that they shouldn't be allowed to use them for free and simple because of the fact that they did have to raise or have the capitol to have them installed. No startup should be allowed to just jump on board and make money.
[%] Cingular Ringtones
In undeveloped countries, the consumer controls the market. In capitalist America, the market controls you.
...you control America....er, wait....
...I thought that those pipes have ALREADY been paid for by the ISP's that are hosting these "young upstarts".
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
No, he's a pescatarian. (The only meat he eats is fish.)
When Witacre talks about content providers using his company's pipes I think he may be thinking of them going into the ISP business. Google and Yahoo are intent on branching out in all directions and to Witacre's mind becoming ISPs may be a logical step for them. I remember reading how steamed he was that he had to open his switches to competitive DSL providers like Covad. He thought that was "unfair."
Of course if he does indeed want to impose some kind of a toll on his customers for accessing sites like Google and Yahoo he is utterly delusional.
Insert witty sig here.
1. he's a tool
2. and a child
but what else do you expect from a texan (and yes that is spelt in lower case.)
Oh Anonymous Coward thank you so much again for your insightful input, it has advanced the discussion of the issue at hand to new heights never before dreamed of. I think you may even be on the verge of solving world hunger!
Warmoth makes the best guitar necks in the world (which they do), hence SBC is the devil and must be destroyed?
I live in Texas which means I must be ???, therefore SBC is the devil and must be destroyed?
(sigh)
I disobeyed the first rule of Slashdot: Don't feed the trolls.
My mistake. I will desist. But please don't let that deter you--by all means, keep up your feeble attempts at taunting and/or insulting me if it makes you feel better; boosts your ego; or helps to lessen your need for mood-altering medications.
Better yet (if your limbs, so weakened by years of neglect of any physical activity other than typing, can support you) climb out of your step-momma's basement and go collect your welfare check so you can pay your ISP bill. Wouldn't want your sole purpose in life to be terminated...
See how utterly pointless it is to make attacks on people that you don't even know? No? That's ok, I understand. You'll be all right, just take some deep breaths and calm down. You've gotten yourself all worked up... There there now, see? I told you it would be ok. Here's your binky, just lay down there and take a nice long nap. That mean ol' guy talking badly about your friends at SBC won't bother you any more...
But if there is only one (is there more?) Internet backbone, then whoever owns it is a monopoly, right?... and they'll be dealt with in a similar maner how monopolist in operating system market where dealt with...
I would say several companies own pieces of the internet backbones, but I'm not really sure how many do, let me google... According to Russ Haynal's ISP Page there are quite a few Major Internet Backbone MAPs.
FalconShould there be a Law?
As I see it, after trying VoIP forl a while, the choke point is where the VoIP providers have to gain access to the PSTN. That is where the RBOC oligopoly can extract its price.
Often when placing a VoIp call, I experience a delay before it starts to ring. That is most likely the result of waiting for a connection to the PSTN. SBC, Verizon, Qwest (and the fading numbers of lesser players) can just charge handsomely for those connection points. Unless regulators control them in this, they'll try to do what they have largely succeeded in doing to the alternative providers for local service. The RBOC's have jacked up the fees they charge CLEC's, and the CLEC's are dropping like flies. The only competition for local service is cable, and the plans they sell are not cheap. That's why I am trying VoIP.
How is Vonage or Google getting to consumers? Since when does Google contact me? Don't I request FROM google? and Vonage.... VOIP using whenever ISP you are using.... and I PAY for my ISP service....... WTF is going on with the water supply? is everyone drinking from the tainted RIAA well?????
Oops. Obviously I meant symmetric. Hehe. The post I replied to used symmetric, I even did the searches on Google using symmetric. Then I go to write the post, and like a complete putz, used sychronous... [sigh].
:)
I'm so glad my occasional idiocy will now live forever on Slashdot.
Nothing to see here
Erect 20 802.11x towers next to my house so that I can get 10Mbit/s sync broadband and I will gladly pay $50.00 per month for the privilege of having my brain and testicles bathed in EMF radition.
(Everything else you said about satellites was spot on. I almost tried it once. They were about to erect the dish and then I was told about requiring Windows and that a static IP wasn't possible and that they blocked email server access and and and) I told them to pack up the dish and go home, right there on the spot.
I will never live for sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.
AC said, "Fact is that they are NOT charging more than once for the infrastructure."
Last time I had a phone bill (cut the landline long time ago). I was still being billed extra for having touch tone service. Yes that's right! Look at your bill. It actually costs SBC more to support the very very few people who still have pulse dial (my grandma is the only one I can recall seeing). The change over to tone has been nearly 100% complete for 10 years now.
Most phones have a switch that changes them between tone and pulse. I suggest everyone flip the switch to pulse, call SBC and have that tone TAX eliminated. Let's see if they have enough tone equipment still functional to support it.
We're not paying more than once. I call BS.
Who will guard the guards?
He who uses it pays for it. I see nothing wrong with SBC/AT&T charging people for the use of their pipes. In fact, the spam problem wouldn't be nearly so bad if spammers actually had to pay for the bandwidth they used.
But Google isn't the user in this case. Whoever is accessing Google is. The idea that I should pay SBC for serving up my website to an SBC customer is repugnant to me. This is not the AT&T telephone network, it's the internet. It is the SBC user who is initiating the connection and all data transfers.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
My favorite asymmetric datacomm system was the Bell 202 "not quite half duplex" which was very similar to the V.23 standard (1200/75, and switchable as to who was who). The Novation AppleCat modem supported this, which made for very fast (by the standards of the day) file transfer applications.
It seems that this has been forgotten in the recent years and almost ALL of the business-consumer contracts are all unfairly one-sided!
Typical contract-
The business's rights:
2) We do not garantee the service. We do not garantee the service against interruptions.
3) We can change the terms of the contract at any time to any condition as we want.
The Consumer's rights:
2) The consumer has no other rights
This isn't the way it's supposed to work. There is SUPPOSED to be compensation for term changes.
Your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
Pretty much everybody has missed the point of the interview, probably because both the question and the answer were a little vague (I'm giving the benefit of the doubt).
Witacre's position is that if Google is going to be a service provider, then they should have to pay SBC for the use of the pipe. The question grouped MSN, Vonage and Google together. What do they have in common? MSN and Vonage are both ISPs and Google is breaking into the market. So Witacre's position is that if any of them want to use SBC's pipe to get customers to the Internet, then SBC wants payment for that. And, to me, that seems reasonable.
Sure, the phone company got breaks from the government in the form of utility easements, but they still had to put up the capital for the infrastructure. And, yes, for many services, they have a guaranteed monopoly, but that is balanced by pretty close government oversight. Phone service is pretty cheap, all things considered.
Quite honestly, what Witacre said is pretty reasonable - if MSN, Google, et al, want to compete with SBC in the Internet business using the same pipe, then SBC want them to pay to get access to the pipe.
Interestingly, I have Qwest DSL service. Qwest is also my ISP and the ISP service is broken out seperately from the DSL service. I could have chosen one of several other ISPs for my service - Qwest carries the signal and the ISP provides the service. The ISP pays Qwest for access to the pipe - it doesn't seem any different than what Witacre is saying in his interview.
-h-
I just finished laying some pipe. He's more than welcome to it.
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
It's pretty clear that Witacre doesn't understand his own business model. His customers pay for their internet service. If he isn't seeing sufficient returns on his capital investment from his customers, it's SBC's fault. Time to get a new CFO. Screwing valued customers by attaching additional costs to services that those customers pay to access is not the answer.
Yes, SBC owns some infrastructure. Furtunately, there is still competition in this arena. If SBC ever figures out how to extort fees from content providers, there will be plenty of competition who won't do this. It won't take long for SBC customers to figure out that they're being double billed for their service (google, ebay, vonage, et al will pass that cost back to their customers rather than eating those costs) and split. The bandwidth-to-the-curb industry is beginning to get crowded...especially with high speed wireless solutions like Verizon's springing up.
In reading the interview, his comments about broadband and internet start-ups sounded like chest-thumping remarks about which he knew absolutely nothing. Without services like google, ebay, vonage, etc, he will not (and never would) have a product to market (and I hope that he knows this). This kind of ass-talking makes him look like a real blow-hard. My advice to him is that he take his moronic chest-thumping nonsense and cramp it up his pipe.
-Turkey
Aside from the fact that WE CONSUMERS are the ones who pay for the "pipes", and
WE ARE THE ONES WHO MAKE HTTP REQUESTS (clearly Mr. SBC believes the system works
something like broadcast), the reality is that it is not SBC that is holding most
of the good cards in the deck: It is Google.
Imagine if Google said to SBC, we're not going to allow your users to access GMAIL,
Google Maps or Search if you don't pay us
I'm not sure that SBC wouldn't be pressured into compliance by the weight of consumer
demand.
Poor SBC. They're obviously desperate.
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
To this date, I have never heard a complaint that the US govt. has tampered with the root servers to manipulate consumer access to any site.
.xxx domain? ICANN was leaning toward allowing it. The Commerce Dept. was getting complaints (apparently from "religious-right" types), and nudged ICANN. ICANN decided not to allow the .xxx domain, for now at least.
"If it ain't broke don't fix it."
The problem is that it might be a little bit broken. Remember the
Outcome: The (purely American) religious right wing prevented the establishment of a new top level domain worldwide, on the basis of their morality. Freedom of speech? You decide.
I think I might know what the problem is for SBC. They're currently charging less than their costs for DSL. For instance, I got in on their $15/month deal. They're offering this deal in order to kill their competition; specifically, those ISPs that are using SBC's last mile lines to the home. (And with the government's help, SBC can now increase what they charge these ISPs too.) This is actually illegal "dumping". The problem is that while they're busy dumping, they're losing money. So they need to temporarily offset this loss.
Software sucks. Open Source sucks less.
the internet was designed to route around damage in the event of a nuclear war
i don't think brain damage was the kind of damage the original designers had in mind when they were building arpanet, but the internet is perfectly capable of routing around this jackass and his pipes
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
THESE PIPES ARE CLEAN!
Which is why the "last mile" owners should only be providing connectivity to connect to the consumer's ISP of choice, on an equal footing with any other ISP, including any owned by or operating for the benefit of those owners. Charge a fair price for the connection, and compete on the basis of service and offerings as an ISP. The ISP shouldn't be able to get away with poor service on the basis of getting favored status from a natural monopoly. Even where there are two competing providers (e.g. cable and telephone), that isn't enough of a free market to keep prices fair. Perhaps with the addition of power-line and Wi-Max (satellite isn't a competitor, people only use it when it is the ONLY option offered), there will be enough competition to start making it a free market, but even with those, it is still a limited natural monopoly - there's only so many towers and cables and lines that can be strung around a town, so early providers get a lock and then can keep prices artificially high, even without collaboration. You can't have a free market when the "barrier to entry" is so high, so regulation is necessary. I wish the FCC would start providing that regulation.
1) I think that they have all the rights to charge as much as they please, as long as this is their pipe. Bad things usually begin when someone starts to dictate others what (not) to with their legally acquired property: "don't charge for that traffic", "don't rip that CD", "don't share that book", "don't decompile that program", etc.
2) Charging twice, they do a stupid thing. Clients won't like it; clients will leave them. Either other existing providers will catch the fleeing clients, or some completely new could form if there'd be so much demand. So, SBC's foolish conduct won't go unpunished, and it will be punished the most efficient way (financial).
Computers make very fast, very accurate mistakes
roughly translated...
"The business i'm in is really competitive and our margins aren't big enough. Companies higher up the food chain have better business models and make more money. That's not fair"
In other news:
Farmers want more money from Supermarkets.
Mining companies want more money from Processor Manufacturers.
Paper manufacturers want more money from the sale of modern art.
Everyone who bulk sells something cheap is going to see someone else making wads of cash higher up the commercial food chain. The reality is can you either a) set up a cartel so you can illegally overcharge or b) offer the same service yourself and actually compete.
In this case my guess is that they can't do diddly squat about it.
"IMHO, the big telcos will be the first with their backs up against the wall when the revolution comes."
IMHO I think slashdotters have a Don Quixote complex. How else does one explain "revolution this" and "revolution that"? Never mind the closes any of you have come to a revolution is watching the local news, or what you've read in a book. Maybe it's all talk because people die in revolutions, both sides. And geeks fundamentally are cowards* at heart. Expecting John Q. Public to somehow get outraged (remember the TV thread awhile back) and start fighting, while geeks sideline, eating popcorn and watch, going "Yeah! That's it. Smack'em upside the head. Stick'em real good. Blow her brains out. This is better than WWF".
*Insert obligatory joke about AC's being "cowards".
It means that the internet is being turned into an obscure Macedonean prince
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Who will use their pipes if they block google?
I didn't know there was an actual word for those people. The only people I have met with that particular dietary habit have been confused college students in bars. After they droned for five minutes on how meat is bad and then proceed to order the fish and a salad they were written off as twits.
In Mr. Jobs defense, or perhaps in my own,I thought he was plain old vegetarian.
.sig: Now legally binding!
In short, he can't do jack for at least two years. Just ignore him for now.
That looks really awesome. I wonder if it will run on FreeBSD (my laptop is on BSD right now but if this did what I wanted to do and didn't work under BSD I'd probably put Linux on the laptop.)
From their press release:
http://www.narus.com/press/2005/0725.html
Narus unified IP Management and Security is deployed by some of the largest carriers and IP service providers in the world, such as AT&T, KDDI, U.S. Cellular, Korea Telecom, T-Mobile and Telecom Egypt. Carriers rely on Narus solutions to provide them with real-time IP knowledge to create, manage and protect their services and revenues. With solutions for protecting critical infrastructure from attack, traffic analysis and management, lawful interception and content-based billing, Narus offers a full suite of IP applications all on a single platform. This approach provides a total network view of IP traffic, demonstrating unparalleled performance, while saving carriers tens of millions of dollars in capital and operational costs.
I don't know how well it works, but it's a one stop shop for "security" concerns from losing revenue to VoIP to complying with new wiretap regulations. It sounds like rather than just sabotaging VoIP ATT or any broadband provider might start billing you for using your connection to access voice communications. Yow.
--
Well, here I am in AMERICA.. I LIKE it. I HATE it. I LIKE it. I HATE it. I LIKE it. I HATE it. I LIKE it. I HATE it. I LIKE.. EMOTIONS are SWEEPING over me!!
I think the word was invented by vegetarians who were sick of people who eat fish claiming to be vegetarians. I've never heard anyone who eats fish say it - half of them say "I don't eat meat except for fish" and the other half seem to think that fish is a vegetable.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't I get a big fat bill every month for paying my broadband bill? Since I pay it, I'm going to use it for whatever the heck I want. I don't see you going after the MMORPG developers because they choose to use their bandwidth that way. I don't see you going after Microsoft because XBOX Live can use those same pipes. I sure as heck don't see you going after the online porn industry because of all the people choosing to use their bandwidth in that manner. What I do with what I pay for is my own business, and if I go and pay for Vonage, I'm going to use it.
You're already making a pretty penny from me, but apparently that's not good enough. Now you're going after the providers of the other services that I pay for, because I choose to use them over your "pipes."
There are a whole lot of industries that need a swift kick in the pants from the consumers that keep them profitable...
SBC could add that clause banning VoIP any time, it's their contract.
Actually the only they could add or change a clause is if the contract has a clause or addendum saying they can. If the original signed contract doesn't say they can then they can't The contract isn't just their's, it's between two or more parties and all parties have to agree to changes.
FalconShould there be a Law?
If you're going to quote Stewart Brand, please get it right:
"On the one hand information wants to be expensive, because it's so valuable. The right information in the right place just changes your life. On the other hand, information wants to be free, because the cost of getting it out is getting lower and lower all the time. So you have these two fighting against each other."
Anything else is a self-serving edit.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
Let's see, why shouldn't Google pay...Perhaps because SBC's hapless customers have ALREADY PAID for transit to the peering, and meanwhile, Google has ALREADY PAID their provider(s) for the same. By the same token, I pay for my Internet service too, perhaps SBC should pay ME for the portion of it taken up by packets from their network (I guess under their theory, they'll owe Google too).
On a broader level, this is fairly revealing of SBC's attitude towards it's customers. That is, it thinks of them as freeloaders (even though they pay for service) and feels put out that it might be called upon to provide something in exchange for it's customer's cash.
As for the revenue and earnings growth, as the market matures it's EXPECTED that growth will stagnate. The stagnation just means that at the current price, most of the people interested in the service (where it is available) have already signed up. If they want more growth, they will just have to find a way to make the service cheaper or more widely available like everyone else.
Instead, it sounds like they want to silently change the deal in a way that the customer will only see indirectly (but they WILL see when free services start to disappear) and then use a PR smokescreen to make it look like someone else's fault.
Vonage, and VOIP services like them, expect (and say in most cases) that the customer is responable for providing the pipe, and paying for it. So, SBC should charge the VOIP customer for the pipe usage, oh wait, they do.
Make no mistake, business is what makes your home connection cheap. They keep prices down for residental while they nail commerical big time. My fiber, the cheapest bill I've ever seen (month) was $2600.00+tax.
The only businesses worse than regulated monopolies are unregulated ones. They don't have to be efficient, and are usually enormously profitable.
Wrong, there are businesses that can and sometymes are worse than unregulated businesses, businesses than control the regulators.
FaclonShould there be a Law?
Uh dude, I think you might want to retract your absurd blanket statement. I assure large bands of the electromagnetic spectrum are extremely dangerous to your health, in particular ionizing radio frequency. Try standing next to a high powered radar for a while and then I'd be impressed with your hubris, or maybe stick your head in a satellite transmitter dish. They slap warning stickers on them for a reason. The jury is still out on whether prolonged exposure to cell phones causes cancer. The only issue is where the danger line is in terms of frequencies and intensity. There are FCC standards for cell phone radiation for a reason too, because higher energy levels are still considered dangerous especially with prolonged exposure.
Its just hard to definitely prove that cell phones are a risk, check back in 20 years when we see how many people are dying from brain tumors after spending 20 years with a cell phone stuck to their ear.
@de_machina
Sounds like his pipes need cleaning.
Headline should read "With much bravado BIG CEO from SBC pronounces his next plan to kill the company. " tard tard tard. Don't they get it yet? Their JOB as shareholder value protectors is to find ways to sell services in a convientent FRIENDLY way that makes people want to come back. NOT cook books to show gains..... If your ice cream tastes like crap from Baskin Robins would you come back for more????? Short SBC if you don't own it. Sell it if you do own it . If it's in your 401k get rid of it.
Google buying Dark Fibre .....
There is a reason they are buying dark fibre, and this is just part of it .
Look for google to have a coast to coast network within a few years or less
depending how many ppl and how much money they put on it .
This is a money war between their yahoo portal and the google portal .
Billions of dollars are at stake and the phone company knows every dirty trick
in the book, and has lobbyists paid well in washington to assure their victory .
Let's just hope google can bypass these jerks and sign a deal with local cable co's
for metro xport, and all google will have to manage is the long haul single mode .
They are trying branded free WiFi in San Fran thou, and may spread it to other areas .
Go Google Go !
Ex-MislTech
google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
Furthermore SBC can start cutting checks to everyone who was previously forced to allow them to dig up their lawns since they apparently feel that all of that government help with right-of-way was meaningless (and feel no need to pay for it).
The *ultimate* unregulated monopoly is the government. They can charge whatever they want, and they can provide crappy service and get away with it.
Does that sound too uncool? Let me frame it in a different way that sounds more "hackish":
Who watches the watchmen?
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
"Now what they would like to do is use my pipes free, but I ain't going to let them do that because we have spent this capital and we have to have a return on it."
'That boy is about as sharp as a cue ball.'
"You're everywhere. You're omnivorous."
Not really. In SBCs areas of operation you may have a choice as to who you get DSL from but they all go through SBCs CO, central office, where the switchs are located.
In france, there is something called "dégroupage", which is basically your DSL provider putting you on his own lines. His lines go to the switches, and the local copper (from the switches to your house) have to be surrendered by the original provider (France Telecom in france, which used to be fully govt owned).
No, it's not but that's how it is in the US. And it may get worse, right now the telcos have to allow other ISPs access to the central office so they can sale dsl access but they are pushing to have the laws changed so they don't have to share. The industry sponsers ads and commercials saying the laws need to be changed. They say they want to allow people to choose what they get but changing the laws will only reduce choices, if you want dls you would only be able to get it from them.
FalconShould there be a Law?
If you think the government would intervene to prevent what is clearly a violation of existing law regarding telcos and their status as regulated monopolies, you should consider the current status of the oil companies. First they jack up their prices during a period of natural disasters, and claim the price increases are needed to offset damage done to their offshore oil rigs and coastal refineries. Then they post record profits immediately following this period of disasters and price hikes, and no one in Washington even mutters the phrase "price gouging" or "profiteering". The interests of the people are no longer the main concern of politicians; the interests of their largest corporate sponsors have pushed them aside.
SBC sucks, anyway. Their upload speeds are never what they advertise and I've noticed that over the past year the cap on my download speed has got lower and lower. I'm just waiting until Verizon rolls out FIOS.
It wasn't taxes, collected by the IRS or your local government Tax Collector. It was a non-negotiable fee without recourse of choosing a competitive provider. Not that there is a whole lot of difference....
So it is the difference between roads and rail. Roads are actually paid for (and built) by your local government - rail by some private (for profit) company.
Should the SBC assets be nationalized? As a Libertarian, I don't think so. I would rather see the monopoly busted by allowing any company right-of-way permissions (providing that the end-user actually gets something for the right-of-way).
"The most sensible request of government we make is not, "Do something!" But "Quit it!"
SBC's marketcap $78.8B
Google's marketcap $103.9B
Think about it.
here is an analogy for what sbc is saying.
in wendy's(for instance)
now, im going to charge every customer that walks through the door for my product(as it should be)
BUT
im also going to charge the farmer for the priviledge of GIVING me BEEF to sell to my customers.
WTF?
are consumers going to get free internet access? and google have to pay for it?
if i were google i would just buy my own 'pipes' and flip SBC the bird. oh wait, they are. so essintial SBC is going to push themselves out of the mainstream market and try to fracture the internet into 'the SBC zone' and 'the real internet'
bottom line:
consumers pay a fee for their access to the web, SBC profits from this arrangement and so do consumers(hense the great growth in broadband internet). they have to right to collect fees for the content provided so that they can sell bandwidth.
another analogy:
exxon sells fuel and makes good money at this, but they have decided that auto companies must pay exxon for the ability to have their vehicles burn exxon gas.. now what happens to exxon? and more importantly, what happens to conoco? conoco's fuel runs on any car. how many cars does general motors, ford, honda, etc.. make for exxon's fuel? zero
Uh dude, I think you might want to retract your absurd blanket statement. I assure large bands of the electromagnetic spectrum are extremely dangerous to your health, in particular ionizing radio frequency.
Dude, you're being to alarmist and misleading here.
Comparing a cellphone to high power radar with MEGAWATTS of power in a higly focused beam is deliberately misleading.
Being cooked from the inside and a possible slight increase in cancer risk are NOT the same thing. Treating them as if they are is misleading and ignorant. It's like comparing getting hit with a hackey-sack and a 50-cal sniper round.
There are FCC standards for cell phone radiation for a reason too, because higher energy levels are still considered dangerous especially with prolonged exposure.
The FCC does limit exposure, to 1.6 watts per kilogram. Do you understand how much power that is?
Its just hard to definitely prove that cell phones are a risk
Which means that if they are it's a small risk, on the level of being exposed to direct sunlight.
I suggest you obtain a copy of the "RF and Microwave Handbook", Golio 2001 and check out the section entitled "Safety and Environmental Issues". Contrary to popular belief, radio communication was not invented in the last 20 years. There are people out there who actually know what they're talking about are have studied these types of things.
That text will also introduce you to the whole EMF controversy, which is what the grandparent poster was referring to and which has been thoroughly debunked.
Life is too short to proofread.
There is a government subsidy involved called eminent domain. Ma Bell and other utilities get a very substantial break in the cost of their right-of-way. Part of the trade-off is that the utility in question needs to operate in the public interest, convenience or necessity.
I have nothing against telco's making money (being a Verizon shareholder), but the telco's do need to hold up their part of the bargain with respect to property taken by eminent domain.
Whoa, wonderful...
Well, good luck guys, looks like you'll need it...
"The way we can tell it's C# instead of Haskell is because it's nine lines instead of two." -- wadler
You are completely missing the point. The point is we know radio waves at certainly energy levels and frequencies are dangerous to living organisms. We don't know precisely what power levels at each frequency are certain to be harmless especially with long exposure. All we have are guesses.
It is a certainty the lower the power, the lower the frequency and the further you are away from a transmitter the less the risk, but you simply don't know what the consequences would be to sitting a WIMAX, 802.11 or cell phone transmitter right next to your tissue and running it for 20 years is, so don't pretend like you do know, it is naive. If an energetic radio wave enters a cell, even on the skin and disrupts DNA or RNA there is a risk. Maybe its an incredibly low risk, maybe its not.
In closing all I have to say is it was not so long ago that the power that be were assuring us nicotine wasn't addictive and smoking didn't cause lung cancer.
@de_machina
Sounds interesting.
I'm basing my argument on one of the foundamental factors of the nature of the mechanics of the Internet, "That servers pass the traffic on to the next node if the traffic does not apply to them." I'm curretnly evaluating the usefulness of WiFi Server to WiFi Server communications handling. I see a usefulness in this area because of the increasing loads that the current internet load operators are having to deal with; And for one reason or another, seem to not be able to handle more data. Cables, Wires, and their logistics are becoming more expensive everyday. A method to reduce the cost, and the logistics of cables is WiFi.
If your trying to establish a VNC connection and your server's behind a NAT, that you can't poke holes in, run a reverse VNC connection. Have the VNC server connect out to the client. With tightVNC it's winvnc -connect [host[:display]] [host[:port]]. You can have this running on a schedule or something.
The Damaging radio frequencies that you are talking about are light (UV and infrared) in the 1Thz range and ionizing frequencies in the petahertz (PETA!!) range. Aside from radiation from space and the occasional dental X-ray you aren't in any danger of exposure to this from your cell phone or any other commercial wireless gadget.
Next, Just because a trasnmitter dish has a sticker slapped on it doesn't mean it produces the effect you would like it to. First off a neighbor has a "beware of dogs" sign on his fence. He doesn't own a dog, let alone plural. Second, the sticker could be there because of public fear and stupidity, as promoted by your post, pressuring the manufacturer to slap a disclaimer on his product that wasn't producing a risk in the first place but for liability and insurance reasons makes sense to do so. Or because the manufacturer believes his product does produce the harmful effect warned against even though it does not.
And Yes. We've had cell phones for over twenty years now which is much longer than is needed to prove health hazards or effectiveness (which is usually determined with ten and twenty year studies.) Other RF/cancer studies go back many more decades but are focused on lower frequency emissions than I believe the context that you and I speaking in which is the near gigahertz range. So sorry, you will not get that silver bullet of proof that you are still hoping for to justify your fear once we "check back in 20 years."... already been there done that.
I'm just disturbed by the fact that the carcinogenic comment in your original post, although it did use the term "potential", was clearly mentioned to raise and promote a fear about common wireless devices and electronic products.
But I didn't want to have to write a lengthy response that was the equivalent to a wikipedia entry on radio spectrum radiation. I will apologize for the blanket statement that was implied by continuing the inappropriate use of the term "RF". Can I have my 20 802.11x towers and 10Mbit connection now?
I will never live for sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.
You are completely missing the point. The point is we know radio waves at certainly energy levels and frequencies are dangerous to living organisms. We don't know precisely what power levels at each frequency are certain to be harmless especially with long exposure. All we have are guesses.
Bull-frickin-shit. This is simply not true. Do you honestly believe that there's not one single bit of experimental data out there?
That's what you're saying and it's 100% wrong. We have a LOT more than "just guesses". We have both theoretical models and hard experimental data. That's where things like the FCC's SAR levels come from in the first place. That comment is both highly ignorant and an offense to the people who have actually taken the time to scientifically study these things.
It is a certainty the lower the power, the lower the frequency and the further you are away from a transmitter the less the risk, but you simply don't know what the consequences would be to sitting a WIMAX, 802.11 or cell phone transmitter right next to your tissue and running it for 20 years is, so don't pretend like you do know, it is naive.
I'm trying to get you to go read something on a topic you clearly know little about. Do you really think no one had ever transmitted RF energy in the 2 GHz frequency range before cellphones and wifi? That's what you're impling.
In closing all I have to say is it was not so long ago that the power that be were assuring us nicotine wasn't addictive and smoking didn't cause lung cancer.
You should not be comparing legitmate science to corporate press releases. You obviously need to work on where you get your information.
You keep making these totaly ridiculous comparisons and analogies. They make me think you aren't interested in the truth in the first place. Sure we don't know everything there is to know about the effects of exposure to microwave radiation, but the implication you're making about our lack of knowedge is provably untrue.
Here's a link to 127 PAGES of references to data on this subject. I repeat, that's not 127 references that's 127 pages of refernces.
Life is too short to proofread.
"Do you really think no one had ever transmitted RF energy in the 2 GHz frequency range before cellphones and wifi?"
We DON'T have long running experience putting RF transmitters RIGHT NEXT TO YOUR BRAIN for LONG duration exposures. There is some with UHF radio but they only transmit when you key mikes. Cell phones transmit all the time. There have been a lot of experience in cars but then the antennas are outside a metal box.
I'm not saying RF transmitters ARE dangerous, I am saying you are out in unsupported land claiming you know for a fact they are COMPLETELY SAFE. We will probably never know that with certainty. About all you can do is manage risk. Many smart people are putting shields on their cell phones to minimize the radiation shooting straight in to the side of their head from a transmitter millimeters from their tissue for long durtions.
"You should not be comparing legitmate science to corporate press releases."
Those press releases were backed by "scientific studies" and experimental data. Unfortunately you can get the results from those studies you want as long as you throw the right amount of money at the right people. The cigarette companies bent them, the cell phone companies are bending them to protect their business as do the drug companies. The FDA's credibility in safety studies for drugs has been completely compromised by corporate money and political influence.
@de_machina
We DON'T have long running experience putting RF transmitters RIGHT NEXT TO YOUR BRAIN for LONG duration exposures. There is some with UHF radio but they only transmit when you key mikes. Cell phones transmit all the time. There have been a lot of experience in cars but then the antennas are outside a metal box.
Why exactly is it that you think you're an authority on what we have and have not studied about the effects of microwave radiation?
All you have are vague and misleading or incorrect statements on this subject.
For example, I hate to be to one to break it you, but your cellphone does not transmit continuously, 24/7. It probably doesn't even transmit continuously during a typical conversation. It's also important to note that those walkie talkies you're in such a hurry to dismiss are an order of magnitude higher power and have been in use for quite some time.
The bottom line here is that you're not an expert on this subject. You're not willing to look at the scientific studies done by actual experts, and you've made up your mind that we need to be afraid regardless of whether there's any data to support your fears.
Those press releases were backed by "scientific studies" and experimental data. Unfortunately you can get the results from those studies you want as long as you throw the right amount of money at the right people.
This is really a silly argument. There's almost always somebody out there who claims to be an expert and is flat out wrong about what they're talking about. That doesn't mean all of scientific reseach is corrupt nonsense.
You should read about the whole EMF scare. One study found that houses near power lines showed a higher risk of cancer. There was no corraboration of this study and it was shown to be false.
To this day there are still people who are worried by this nonsense. They'll claim it's a big conspiracy by the power company to cover it up. They don't have a clue regarding the actual science involved and aren't interested in changing their views.
Life is too short to proofread.
bigger government. What's yer point?
Steve Magruder, Metro Foodist
I sympathize with the idea of requiring that SBC allow access to all companies. But I'm afraid this is one of those things that looks great on paper, but sucks in reality.
In my own experience, I've gotten residential phone service from secondary phone companies who were allowed to run off the same lines as the primary phone company. However, the secondary phone company seemed to be frequently tripped up by the primary company in how service issues were handled, as the primary company still was responsible for much of it. I recall my secondary provider complaining that the primary provider was giving them a lot of run-around with regards to getting things done.
This is why I think nationalizing might work better. That way all service providers become equalized, where one cannot trip up the other except through a free market competition of services The libertarian in me likes that aspect. Sometimes the government we elect is needed to bring about greater freedom, by binding the freedom of one powerful entity.
Steve Magruder, Metro Foodist
Once nationalized, I can easily see where the telcom and power line contracts are valuable enough that they would attract all sorts of corruption.
It isn't an easy situation to fix. You are 100% correct about vendors pointing fingers at each other. From what I've heard, the Baby Bells had a reputation for their technicians going out of their way to screw with 3rd-party equipment. I read somewhere that it got so bad that the 3rd party gear has to be inside a chain link fence cage (inside the building) and the keys to the padlocks have to logged for each use.
I'd like to see right-of-way access granted to any company that wants to run fiber to the home. I remember when the cable TV company got rights to lay coax in my town. One of my friends worked on a crew. They didn't get paid a lot, and there were something like six crews of four guys working all throughout the town. But they cabled the whole town of about 70,000 people in about six months. He ended up following that cabling crew across the country and ended up in Kentucky last I heard.
"The most sensible request of government we make is not, "Do something!" But "Quit it!"
ok, UDP has no guarantee of reliability, but you can make it worse.