SBC CEO: Pay up if you want to use our pipes 613
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?'."
Who is paying the bills... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
I guess I'm confused (Score:4, Interesting)
Because they are in part, public property... (Score:5, Interesting)
Now you know... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Somehow (Score:0, Interesting)
This is why Google is dabbling in Wireless (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Empty Threat (Score:5, Interesting)
I hope ma bell actually tries to do this "Sorry you cannot access GOogle because they will not pay us a fee"...then the customer leaves the DSL company for the cable company. Also, this guy doesn't realize that internet transmissions piggy back all the time...so someone could make the same argument against this baby bell. "Yea one of your customers wanted to access XYZ website and because of this their ip route passed through our pipes...pay up or your customers won't get access".
What Brewster Kahle (internet archive founder) say (Score:3, Interesting)
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...
Re:It's about VOIP (Score:5, Interesting)
If he starts regulating the content of data on his wires, he loses common carrier status. Now he becomes liable for every snuff/rape/bestiality site that crosses his wires in the US. He's liable for every pipe bomb HOWTO, every warez download, every mp3 stream, every alt.bin.illegal.stuff post, every pedophile in an IRC channel, et cetera, et cetera.
At that point, SBC either goes out of business or spends truly profligate amounts of money - even in comparison to current business spending on Capitol Hill - to try and get common carrier redefined.
You don't remember Ma Bell, do you? (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:Back... but too late (Score:3, Interesting)
and lease the lines from.. Ma Bell? This is the joke of so-called competition. The lines belong to Ma Bell (at public expense), so you're just dealing with the same crap, different face.
Cable companies are no picnic either. Many offer their own VOIP products and use QoS on their routers to make sure that their packets get priority routing over Vonage and other 3rd party providers. What kind of competition can you have when they're well within their rights to route traffic on their networks as they see fit and will use that to stifle competition?
Legal liability (Score:3, Interesting)
Sounds like at least one position is unsustainable...
Let him try it (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Empty Threat (Score:5, Interesting)
'I hope ma bell actually tries to do this "Sorry you cannot access GOogle because they will not pay us a fee"...then the customer leaves the DSL company for the cable company.'
And what of the rumors (confirmed or not?) that Google has been buying up scads of dark fiber? Does this guy really want Google to decide to become a common carrier and eat his lunch too? What are they putting in the water on the executive floor these days?
I give any company who tries to deny users access to internet services because the content providers won't pay them about 6-12 months to live. They need to come to grips with reality that information transmission has become a utility, and that people mostly just want to buy packets in and packets out. Denying the transmission of information when that's your only product is pretty damn stupid. If SBC tries this, I will buy puts on SBC so fast I'll make their heads swim.
Well, not really, 'cause I'm a little fish, but you get my meaning. :-)
Re:rephrase the debate (Score:2, Interesting)
Screw those bastards.
Except SBC won't offer naked DSL. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Asymmetric Threat [OT] (Score:2, Interesting)
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}
Let's forget the digital part... (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:so? (Score:3, Interesting)
The guy's a dick.
Luckily, Google and Yahoo are such huge enterprises, that they'll sue his ass for all he's worth if he tried to go through with it.
Re:Consumers paid for access, not "pipes" (Score:3, Interesting)
It's already happening, by the way... Look at the AUP for the internet service I just signed up for:
http://www.ntc-com.com/content/?title=acceptable+
The parts that worry me are the VoIP (of course, they want you to buy their local phone service, in addition to their internet and cable), and the "one jack, one computer". I mean, that's all well and good for the average college students that make up the majority of their users, but what about my wife and I? Should I pay an extra $34.99/month for her computer to be online, when the combined total of (hers+mine) won't exceed the available bandwidth on one computer? What if I want to use my laptop wirelessly? How about hooking up my tivo to the internet so that I don't have to have it phone home for updates? I'm not going to pay $35/mo on top of the tivo service fee just to hook it up to the internet.
*sigh* I'll play nice, for now... but we'll see if it chafes me. I'm going to set up a network and distribute DHCP from my computer with no gateway... we'll see how that goes.
Also the part about reporting to the University any honor code violations... "You break our dumb rules, we'll tattle on you". What the hell, man?
~Will
Re:Empty Threat (Score:5, Interesting)
"Sec. 238.0 Bait advertising defined.1
Bait advertising is an alluring but insincere offer to sell a product or service which the advertiser in truth does not intend or want to sell. Its purpose is to switch consumers from buying the advertised merchandise, in order to sell something else, usually at a higher price or on a basis more advantageous to the advertiser. The primary aim of a bait advertisement is to obtain leads as to persons interested in buying merchandise of the type so advertised.
Sec. 238.1 Bait advertisement.
No advertisement containing an offer to sell a product should be published when the offer is not a bona fide effort to sell the advertised product. [Guide 1]
Sec. 238.2 Initial offer.
(a) No statement or illustration should be used in any advertisement which creates a false impression of the grade, quality, make, value, currency of model, size, color, usability, or origin of the product offered, or which may otherwise misrepresent the product in such a manner that later, on disclosure of the true facts, the purchaser may be switched from the advertised product to another.
(b) Even though the true facts are subsequently made known to the buyer, the law is violated if the first contact or interview is secured by deception."
If an ISP (as in P stands for Provider), they can't filter/block access to anything and still sell 'Internet Service.' To do so means they become a Publisher, since they're controlling what you can access (I think AOL fits into this role in certain aspects), and that's a bundle of liability to make many companies tread lightly. If I buy service from a company offering 'Internet' access, I have a reasonable expectation that any IP based technology will work with it, be it software I run on my computer, or an off the shelf consumer device designed to work with the Internet. Companies providing bundled services need to step lightly on this subject. Selling me 'Internet' access, blocking VOIP transit, and offering a comparable VOIP service (for a fee, of course), is asking for trouble.
Relax - Ma Bell doesn't have her own teeth (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:You don't remember Ma Bell, do you? (Score:4, Interesting)
I try to remind her about how expensive it was to use the phone and how much we were held back technologically, but that doesn't seem to matter much to her.
Don't read too much into this ... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Empty Threat (Score:3, Interesting)
Seriously.
While they are at it, however, eliminate the UCC, and any other federal 'so-called' taxes which really go straight to the phone company.
For the phone company to charge the real price directly in the bill, and allow them to go ahead and raise the rates as much as they want.
Government regulation tends to prop up these monopolies, not destroy them. Government action is needed when there are ZERO choices in service provider. Which, in most areas, is no longer the case. My area, not including VoIP, has 6 internet providers, 3 cable companies, 2 satellite 'cable' providers, and 5 phone companies.
The government paying for phone lines, and then regulating them to keep the prices low is just another way of artifically making the phone company price competitive. Force them to push the cost to the consumer, and VoIP/Cable look more and more attractive.
Re:Backing Up that Threat (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Empty Threat (Score:3, Interesting)
Hopefully you're right about the quick death of companies that act deny access. Hopefully there are some ISPs that will figure out how to get word out to the people in a way they understand that these scummy ISPs are denying the fundamental nature of the Internet. Of course, if it's the cable companies they'll probably be working on trying to block streaming video. Jerks.
Damn Straight.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Uhhhh.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, this is what the middleman always tries to do, in the case of communications services that is why we impose government regulation, which in turn creates a whole new set of middlemen but this time with guns.
Really what this fucker, Edward Witacre, is saying that his customers need to pay him twice for access to other people's content which his customers themselves go out and request. If he was talking about Spammers only, then that might be an acceptable point, but he wouldn't exaclty be looking out for his customers if he took kickbacks from spammers. So , really we are talking about content that his customers want and are already paying the content providers to receive. And apparently he is charging those customers enough money to make a profit already, so his "need" to charge the other end of the communciation to be able to respond to his customers requests is purely based upon greed not neccesity or any reasonable notion of equity and fairness.
Also, we should beware QoS (Quality of Service), it is the ISPs way of charging for differentiation of services. If the ISPs have their way they will delay packets that haven't paid a QoS tax. Far from being a way of providing better service to those that need it, it is a way of getting those that need lower latency (and can "afford" it) to pay more. So, those that have money (businesses, rich individuals) will get screwed by having to pay more for Internet Access and those that are paying less will get screwed when their packets are queued up for whatever arbitrary amount of time will squeeze the most money out of people. QoS will kill the Internet as a flexible communications platform. QoS is the DRM of networking.
Re:Empty Threat (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course if SBC gets caught in their old ways, all we need is for Verizon to start working to expand land based service further west and before you know it competition (which has sorely been lacking even post original Ma Bell) might take place. Reminds me about how much it irks me. They break up AT&T into smaller telecoms, but in their individual regions they still held monopolies. I guess regionalized monopolies are OK, because yeah no choice helps us all.
The telecoms are rightly worried about VOIP since it is becoming a more acceptable solution (though it has some glaring issues still in certain markets). This is why the Verizon (and presumably SBC) are wanting to cut into the cable turf, because after all they are cutting into their turf with VOIP services. So maybe we will wind up with some huge like Cable and Phone conglomerate and I can pay like $200 a month to one company for cell phone, land line and cable...damn expensive services...
"Why should they be allowed to use my pipes?" (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Slight missunderstanding (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Empty Threat (Score:2, Interesting)
My guess that the next round of battles will be landlines can't compete with the "leeches" on the internet, so, please pretty please mr regulators can we allow filtering of ip voice and tv services, and charge more to those customers for allowing that data to go across our pipe, for providing a service that we are not earning a "fair markup" on? This of course will be reinforced with promises to put in more bandwidth, just like they've promised to regulators for the past 5 years.
Remember kids, 90% of the money the telephone companies (and other utilities) make is directly tied to the what the politicians you elect allow. What google and any other competitor want is some sort of technology that lets them leap over that last mile, or the local goverment to decide it's in their best interest to provide fiber as a local water-type utility.
Re:Backing Up that Threat (Score:3, Interesting)
Altering the contents of the packets -- "adding noise" -- is illegal. That constitutes a wire-tap.
And singling out VoIP traffic for specific losy traffic shaping is grounds to lose common carrier status. It's intentional action against very specific traffic for a competetive advantage. (I'm sure there are lawyers already drooling in anticipation of class action suits.)
(Btw, I recall one ISP being wacked over the head for doing this sort of shit. Mebtel in Mebane, NC.)
Re:Empty Threat (Score:2, Interesting)
Compare that to the cable access I had that had pings from 40ms to 200+ms, and the only thing the cable company cared about was whether or not I could pull up a webpage. SBC DSL hasn't been down once yet. They don't complain if you run http or ftp servers, and the guys in the SBC Direct forum are great to work with. At 9k+ feet from the C.O. I wasn't even supposed to be able to get their 3M package, but after a few weeks of testing things with the SBC Direct guys I got on the 3M package and have been on it for about 10 months without issue.
Just because you have an issue doesn't mean their service sucks.
Re:Somehow (Score:2, Interesting)
I swear some people are so wrapped up in their "isms" that they care more about the "sacred word of ism" than they do about the results. Small minds.
Re:Shades of Things to Come (Re:Somehow) (Score:3, Interesting)
Just another reason for me to never switch to SBC DSL. What a brilliant tactical move, I can't think of a better way to alienate your customers then by cutting off the very services that they are dispensing their funds to you to get to...
Oh, come off your high horse and actually RTFA before you start on your rant. All he says is that Google/et. all shouldn't get free access to his lines. He also points out that Google's customers (us) can't very well access Google without his lines or the lines of his competitors. Unless Google is going to get into the Tier 1 business then I don't see this changing any time soon.
Furthermore he makes a few good points and I'm pretty annoyed to see that everybody here grossed over them. The best one is how the cable companies get to push telephony down their pipe without paying any extra fees or being regulated but when phone companies have tried to push TV down their pipe they have had municipalities come after them for franchise fees.
It's not the 80s anymore people. You can stop hating the phone company now.
Re:Somehow (Score:1, Interesting)
--S
Re:Shades of Things to Come (Re:Somehow) (Score:5, Interesting)
And, pray tell, what are the consumers paying for? What in the world is wrong with bailing from them as your ISP if they start blocking the services you want/need? What do you need them for if you can't Google?
And another thing, who says Google is getting their pipes for free? I'm sure they pay a kings ransom for their leased lines.
So... neither the consumer nor Google is getting anything from SBC for free. So I'm staying right here on my high horse thank you. This CEO is just trying to generate revenue streams out of thin air. If he implements that particular scheme, then if I were a customer (which I am not), I would walk away. Let's see how long his consumer internet services revenues last then...
I don't hate SBC, I just think this line of thought for generating revenue is a really bad idea--as his level and on up...
Re:Somehow (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes they did.
They would be happy to if you're prepared to pay what that costs.
No they're not.
For 19.95 a month, you get filtered network connections, no ability to run a server dynamic IP addresses, and capped bandwidth.
No, for 26.95 a month, I get a filtered email port (to stop zombies), a dynamic IP address (but nothing DDNS can't fix), and unlimited access (but only 1.5Mbps throughput). There's no limitation on hosting a server, no monthly data transfer cap, and no bullcrap from SBC. And yes, this is SBC DSL. I've had it since before the Yahoo! addition, and I never agreed to their amended ToS, with good reason. Look at what I can do without it!
For 99.95 a month you get static ip's, no filters, and the ability to run anything you want.
Actually, I believe that plan costs 64.95 a month.
SBC delivers exactly what you contracted for.
Yup. I "renewed" that contract rather than agreeing to new ToS, too. And they allowed it. And they cut my monthly price in half, too.
You want cheap, you get cheap, you want full pipes, you PAY for full pipes. DUH. That copper costs money, the electricity to run the system, the techs in the trucks, the poles, etc etc etc all cost money.
I want cheap AND full pipes. And I get it. You just have to push them a bit. Oh, and all but the recurring costs of business were subsidized by my parents' tax dollars (I was only about 3 when Ma Bell got severed), so that argument can get stuffed. And even now they receive some major kickbacks, so that argument can get stuffed into the indefinite future, too. "DUH."
To get down to the real issue here, SBC is getting paid exactly the amount they're asking for, and their CEO is a greedy asshat and won't cool it with the retarded "we're entitled because we're the victim boo hoo" rhetoric.
(heh... the captcha word here is "teletype"... how fitting.)