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?'."

Hasn't anyone learned from previous failures?

[url80]

Hasn't anyone learned from the failures of the CIX effort in the early nineties?

I mean.. let's get real.

Best, url the bounty network [bountynetwork.com]

Read it again

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Because they are in part, public property...

[antiMStroll]

Don't laugh. Media content providers and software manufacturers are leading the way in shifting the consumer mindset from ownership to licensing. There may soon come a day when someone reading your comment doesn't understand why that's a bad thing.

Re:Empty Threat

[Tmack]

But if there is only one (is there more?) Internet backbone

There are several "backbone" networks. The tier 1 orgs mentioned in the submission (Level3 and Cogent) are just 2 of them. Each has a network that spans a large geographic region and peers with many smaller networks and other tier 1 networks. This network of networks is the collective internet backbone. One could go away completely, and a good bit of the internet would still be around, just the customers on only 1 upstream provider would be on a network to nowhere, and would be unavailable to the world until their ISP got a link to a different tier 1. Though Level3 is playing like a monopoly, they are not, and got reminded of that with the result of their Cogent dispute.

tm

very old-school phone thinking

[jjeffries]

I work for a small CLEC/ISP...

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.

Re:It's about VOIP

[Holi]

SBC broadband internet does not have common carrier status , nor does any other internet service provider in the US. Why this common misconception persists is a mystery to me. They are coverd by the term Enhanced Service Provider (ESP), in the telecom world common carrier status carries may burdens and regulations that no ISP wants nor does the fcc want to grant it. so please lets stop making this claim as it is completely false.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Blocking VOIP is a not allowed...

[HycoWhit]

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]

Re:Could someone please tell me....

[Ulven]

Balkanize: To divide (a region or territory) into small, often hostile units. [From the political division of the Balkans in the early 20th century.]

Re:Empty Threat

[Cramer]

Actually, there isn't a "backbone" anymore. Back when the NSF administered the Internet, there was a backbone -- the "top of the hill" from whence packets would flow back out to where they needed to go; if you didn't know what to do with a packet, you forwarded it to the next upstream hop towards the backbone. In today's Internet, there's no such thing. If you're connected behind UUNet and I'm connected behind Sprint, there has to be a connection between UUNet and Sprint or we cannot talk to each other. (As Tier 1 ISP's, they will not hand that traffic to a 3rd party -- i.e. a "transit" provider.) That's what made the Level3/Cogent thing such a damnedable mess.

(It's what makes the entire Internet a f'ing mess, IMO.)

Re:Somehow

[robertjw]

Most of what you discuss are just basic CYA stuff for your ISP.

• The 'offensive, embarrassing, pornographic' clause is there to save them if you start distributing kiddie porn
• The restriction on business/commercial use is to keep you from taking advantage of their system by running a server or sucking up all of their bandwidth with multiple employees
• The wifi thing is to keep you from sharing a connection with all your neighbors that don't want to pay for the service - although if you do it right I don't know how they could detect you running a router.

As far as the NAT, check out http://www.no-ip.com./ [www.no-ip.com] I use their free service to ssh into my home machine on a cable network without a static IP. Been doing it for over a year and haven't had any problems yet.

Bottom line is the contract, from what you relayed to us, doesn't state that they will filter any sites. It definitely doesn't appear to say that you can only access locations that have a contract with the ISP, which is what SBC is appearantly trying to do.

LOL

[nehumanuscrede]

Don't put too much thought into his statement folks :)

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 ?

Re:Somehow

[gte910h]

Look at logmein.com...its not ssh, more like vnc, but it will work in your situation.

Re:Somehow

[bonehead]

As far as the NAT, check out http://www.no-ip.com./ [www.no-ip.com] I use their free service to ssh into my home machine on a cable network without a static IP. Been doing it for over a year and haven't had any problems yet.

I'm not sure how that's going to help him if he's behind a NAT. While not technically a requirement, a machine behind a NAT will usually have an RFC 1918 IP address (10.x.x.x, 172.16.x.x, or 192.168.x.x). Since these are not routable on the public Internet, a dynamic DNS service isn't going to help him a bit.

Current Carrier solutions to this

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Don't feed the troll

[rossifer]

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

Nowhere for customers to go.....

[Danathar]

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.

the choke point

[lordscotus]

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.

Who uses it?

[Arandir]

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.

Re:Somehow

[jp10558]

I can't think of a simple solution, but if you can install software on both ends, you might be able to use www.hamachi.cc

Re:Somehow

[Anonymous Coward]

SBC hasn't done that, though.

Remember the Yahoo! thing? They changed their ToS for that. Then they mailed a "please install this crap on your PC" disc around to their customers, and it had a click-through ToS change on it. My DSL was still working as it always had, so I simply ignored it and didn't agree to the ToS.

The last time I renewed my contract, the customer service rep noted that I hadn't agreed to the new ToS, and asked me if I would like to. I declined. They had no problem renewing my contract and lowering my price, despite my refusal to accept the new ToS. It's funny, I'm probably one of a handful of people that still have a ToS that allows an email server on a residential DSL plan.

The moral of this story: Just say "NO!"