 wtansill
Ncc1701
join:2000-10-10
Falls Church, VA | Well Duh! Got smacked for being just a bit _too_ greedy? Never fear -- he'll be back at some point with a slightly more subtle scheme for doing the same thing.
--
That which does not kill me merely prolongs the agony. | |
|
 | 
JamesPC
join:2005-10-12
Orange, CA | Re: Well Duh! there has to be a plan to all of this...i hope he did not think that they would actually pay...I wonder what the really scheme is to the game. (why would he want to piss off search engines and almost everyone in that industry) | |
|
| |
| | 
CPM
join:2001-08-24
Miami, FL | Re: Well Duh! The sky is not blue, well not at night that is. Then is black. It all depends on your view point. | |
|
| | | harryhoudini
join:2003-02-05
Los Angeles, CA
1 edit | Re: Well Duh! The sky is always blue. There is mearly an absence of light.
My skin is white. The fact I am in a dark room is not going to change the color of my skin. | |
|
| | | | 
TJ183456
@verizon.net
| Re: Well Duh! The sky is not blue, it may look blue, but its not blue.
The color of an object is defined by the wavelength of the reflected light off the object.
What light wavelength bounces off of nitrogen and oxygen?
As light passes through the atmosphere it refracts blue wavelength light, though it won't reflect it. And this is only during the midday. At dawn or dusk, the sky looks red.
If you were in outer space looking at our atmosphere (sky) with plenty of light, it would look "black".
If that didn't make sense, try this site:
»math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/G···sky.html | |
|
| | | | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20 | Re: Well Duh! Congratulations!
You all qualify to become CEOs of our nations' finest corporations! | |
|
| |
| 
Maarvin
Premium
join:2005-04-11
Denver, CO | Duh! Rip off your customers and before you know it, ZAP!, no customers! It's MAGIC!. | |
|
|
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA
| Misinterpreted.... Yeeeeeaaaahhhh..... I guess I misinterpreted this:
said by Ed Whitacre :
The Internet can't be free in that sense, because we and the cable companies have made an investment and for a Google or Yahoo! or Vonage or anybody to expect to use these pipes [for] free is nuts! Odd, it seemed quite clear to me. Perhaps what this CEO needs are lessons in speaking clearly? 
--
-Jason Levine
My Gallery | Jason's Toolbox | PCQandA.com | URateit.com | |
|
| 
JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA | Re: Misinterpreted.... Yeeeeeaaaahhhh..... Last time I checked, every company online pays for their pipes and bandwidth to the net. If Whitacre wants to build a wall around SBC's customers and start calling the company AOL, it's his folly. | |
|
| KONG4
join:2002-04-05
Tampa, FL
1 edit | Let me see. I the customer already pay the Internet service provider to allow me to move data to and from my pc. I am paying for packet and bit delivery. I the customer am paying the way for google to come to my house.
What Whiticare forgets is that with out the content of the Google's and the CNN's and other websites and services. We the paying SBC, Verizon, Comcast customers would have no need for SBC.
Ed has proved his lack understanding of his own business. He is co dependant upon quality content providers. In his greed he has over looked the basics of his business. If he wants the web portal and search engine business revenue then he needs to build a better website and search engine.
No faster way to shoot himself in the foot than to think he is gonna get to raise the prices on customers because big website companies are being accessed over his network.
Google already pays for massive broadband to get in and out of their servers. He would not be crying if he were the data pipeline company supplying them. | |
|
| 
Jigsaw
Stardust We Are
Premium
join:2000-10-21
Cleveland, OH
 ·Cox HSI
| said by Jason Levine  :I guess I misinterpreted this: said by Ed Whitacre :
The Internet can't be free in that sense, because we and the cable companies have made an investment and for a Google or Yahoo! or Vonage or anybody to expect to use these pipes [for] free is nuts! Odd, it seemed quite clear to me. Perhaps what this CEO needs are lessons in speaking clearly? NO that's about how big of a dumb ass he is.They only know money nothing else.Its all about the money how can they screw the little guy for 2 more cents so they can give themselves a nice raise after taking more from there own workers.But IMHO That's all the US is now nothing but crooks that hide behind the law there Whores(Gov)Made to make it easy for them to do what they do.
--
»www.auralmoon.com/html/ Open your mind and your ears. | |
|
server_tech
@148.177.x.x
| Thsi says it all... "SBC has not and will not block or limit access to lawful content or applications on the Internet," he said. "Mr. Whitacre's comments are being misinterpreted. They were not made in the context of the Internet, but rather SBC's $4 billion investment in its new fiber network to provide Internet-based video services," Balmoris said.
The spokesman said SBC might strike commercial agreements with companies such as Google, Yahoo and Vonage to give them access to that part of its network.
I don't get it. If I purchase this service from SBC then I wont be able to use Google? Isn't this meant to replace the copper lines? Sounds like double speak to me. Unfortunately, the U.S. is going to destroy the internet by the time all of this plays out.
And what is this crap about phone companies not being able to block content "for two years". After two years it's okay to block competitors content? I stand by my statement above. | |
|
|
JamesPC
join:2005-10-12
Orange, CA
| Re: Thsi says it all... I don't get it. If I purchase this service from SBC then I wont be able to use Google? Isn't this meant to replace the copper lines? Sounds like double speak to me. Unfortunately, the U.S. is going to destroy the internet by the time all of this plays out.
what do you mean by this? (US going to destroy internet) | |
|
| |
| |
server_tech
@148.177.x.x
| Re: Thsi says it all... Gee, so sorry for not being a registered user and posting my opinion. Here is an idea, if you don't want unregistered people posting, remove anonymous posting. It's that simple. Oh wait, no it's not, because you don't own this site. Idiot.
Anyway, yes, U.S. Capitalism will destroy the internet. There are now what, 5 major network providers, most monopoly's in the area's they serve. I have no other financially feasible choice other than Comcast to get HSI.
So what if SBC decides to go this route? You sure as hell know that Comcast and Time Warner will also. Guess what, many sites couldn't afford to pay for access to all these companies networks. What happens? they close up shop. Less sites for end users to visit. Oh yeah, and the companies that can afford it are just gonna pass the cost along to, you guessed it, YOU.
And did you skip over the part of the article where it says, as a condition of the mergers, they are not allowed to block content for 2 years? What do you think happens after 2 years and a day?
Enjoy it while it lasts. | |
|
| | | pbaldwin
join:2002-12-17
Dupo, IL
 ·Wisper
| Re: Thsi says it all... Start a WISP. Get off your ass and hound some smart capitalist to offer you WISP service. Took some time, but it worked for me.
Broadband is by no means an inherent right. If you can't afford it get Netzero. Bam... Cheap access.
Capitalism built the US and will keep the nation going for a long time to come.  | |
|
RayW
Premium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
clubs:
 ·XMission
| He is right, he was misinterpreted What he meant was that he wants both ends of the pipe to pay, his customer, and those who the customer contacts. Maybe?
said by BusinessWeek Online :
"How concerned are you about Internet upstarts like Google (GOOG ), MSN, Vonage, and others?"
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?
The Internet can't be free in that sense, because we and the cable companies have made an investment and for a Google or Yahoo! or Vonage or anybody to expect to use these pipes [for] free is nuts!
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. | |
|
|
|
Unregistered user
| Re: interpretation I have an idea. How about providers not worrying at all about QoS. Give me my pipe, and I'll figure out how to allocate the bandwidth. Or, if they're going to do QoS, allow the end user to determine which packets get priority.
But I guess that'll never happen, since that'd mean they couldn't push their preferred services. | |
|
| | 
qdemn7
Smurf in My Loop
Premium
join:2003-09-16
Fort Worth, TX
| Re: interpretation This idiot's statement just changed my mind 180 degrees about muni-wi-fi. I hope every city in the country installs muni, and tells SBC to go FO. 
In fact I have SBC, and I think I might just switch to Chater, as sson as they get 5 megs here.
--
"Gun Control: The notion that Matthew Shepard tied to a fence post in the middle of Wyoming is morally superior to Matthew Shepard explaining to the local sheriff how his attackers got all those fatal bullet holes." ~Dan Weiner | |
|
dustintodd
join:2001-03-18
Brooklyn, NY
1 edit | NYCwireless Network Neutrality Challenge In a recent BusinessWeek article, SBC CEO Edward Whitacre made some very
provocative statements with regards to allowing the Googles and Vonages
of the world to provide services over the Internet to subscribers of the
SBC broadband network.
In response to SBC, NYCwireless is challenging every company that
provides broadband services in NYC to make a public statement supporting
the 4 Network Neutrality principles outlined below. We believe it
essential to keep the Internet as an open innovation platform and
participatory communications commons for the long-term benefit of society.
We will keep a scorecard showing which companies have chosen to embrace
these principles, and as you, as a representative of an ISP that
provides service in NYC, to sign onto this initiative. In addition, we
are asking each provider to include a web page with their public
statement on their own websites. We suggest that the URL to find a
provider’s stance on Network Neutrality be made available to the
Internet community via the URL »YourISPWebsite/neutral.html.
NYCwireless Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge:
»www.nycwireless.net/tiki-index.p···hallenge
Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge Scorecard:
»www.nycwireless.net/tiki-index.p···coreCard
Network Neutrality is the concept that network operators provide free
and non-discriminatory transport on their networks between the endpoints
of the Internet. This has been a basic concept and function of the
Internet since it was invented, and is adopted by the FCC in these four
principles to ensure that broadband networks are widely deployed, open,
affordable, and accessible to all consumers:
1. Consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their
choice.
2. Consumers are entitled to run applications and use services of their
choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement.
3. Consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that
do not harm the network.
4. Consumers are entitled to competition among network providers,
application and service providers, and content providers. | |
|
ONiall
Yum, Citizen
Premium
join:2002-11-18
Portland, OR
clubs:
·Comcast
| he was not clear he didn't come out and state this exactly, but with Google's plans for hardware based content, and all companies interest in VoIP services, Vonage being one he named in his quote, he may have been stating that with SBC offering VoIP services, and wanting to provide video content, he is sore that those other companies can take advantage of their customers having an internet connection, being provided by SBC.
I don't think he was suggesting he believes Google, or Yahoo must pay to allow customers to access their websites.
--
i drink with bears for weekend carnivals. | |
|
| 
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX | Re: he was not clear It's still the same sour grapes though. VOIP is just a phone signal travelling through your Internet connection. Customers are still paying for the bandwidth being used by their VOIP service no matter what company provides the VOIP. | |
|
Rojo78
join:2005-09-21
Hollywood, FL
1 edit | I see the point! ISP's do a lot of the hard work, laying down fiber, upgading CO's, repairing lines, buying new equipment and etc. That all cost a lot of money, while the Google's of the world profit from the ISP's investment since more people are online.
But it's stupid to try to single out big companies like Google and the such to try to also get a piece of their pie.
If they charge 1 company then they should charge them all, but would Joe's e-shop down the street pay?
Its a no win for the ISP. | |
|
| fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Re: I see the point! said by Rojo78 :ISP's do a lot of the hard work, laying down fiber, upgading CO's, repairing lines, buying new equipment and etc. That all cost a lot of money, while the Google's of the world profit from the ISP's investment since more people are online. And where does the money come from to pay for all that? Did the CEO put it on his own Gold Card? No... they pay for that out of the profits they get from the paying customers of the service. The statement he made is a slap in the face to each customer who pays thier bill each month.
I don't believe that the customer OWNS SBC, however, they are renting the service. SBC wouldn't be able to "pay" for that pipe if the customer wasn't paying them money to use it either. I think you get what I mean.
Also, what is the internet without google? News sources? etc? If google, vonage, gamer servers, etc. didn't exist, then why have internet in the first place? Becuase I am not paying $50.00 a month to send email. Google, Vonage, Yahoo, etc... they keep SBC in business too. | |
|
| |
Rojo78
join:2005-09-21
Hollywood, FL
1 edit | Re: I see the point! Ok, so you are telling me that Google is not profiting from more people comming online everyday? At the expense of the ISP?
But it's like if American Airlines started charging shops at the Airport for more planes they buy, since there are more people.
Not gonna happen. | |
|
| | | 
FLECOM
Bay Networks Freak
Premium
join:2003-03-03
Miami, FL | Re: I see the point! how is it at the expense of the ISP? more people coming online means more bills the ISP sends out... pretty simple
--
BellSouth sucks | |
|
| | | |
Rojo78
join:2005-09-21
Hollywood, FL
| Re: I see the point! Of course there are more bills for the ISP, thats the whole point in growing.
But that's not case, the case here is this: "Is Google also profiting from more people online?"
Of course they are, so the real question is: "Can ISP's cut into their pie, since they are doing somewhat at the ISP's expense?" | |
|
| | | | |
See 9 replies to this post |
|
packetscan
Premium
join:2004-10-19
Bridgeport, CT
clubs:
·Optimum Online
| WTF part 2 Quote :
SBC spokesman Michael Balmoris said Whitacre was not talking about charging companies for letting customers access their Web sites. Rather, he said, Whitacre was referring to access Internet companies may want to the "managed and secure" portions of the fiber-optic network SBC is building largely to deliver video to customer homes.
So google's service will be degraded unless they pay to use sbc fiber optic network.
Maybe i'm reading to much into it but they are still saying the same thing. Pay or get lost. | |
|
| 
cableties
Premium
join:2005-01-27
 ·Verizon FIOS
| Re: WTF part 2 Unless they are referring to the dark fiber. Then this would make some $ense.
I still think the guy is a nutjob for even saying this (so much for edumacated executives). But if any big pipe user wants more, then charge them for waking up the rest.
Fiber is good for your bandwidth and your colon!:p | |
|
kdandaoc
join:2003-10-13
608052427 | remember this.... remember this attitude when SBC changes its facade to ATT. yes, they merged, but there will be alot of fanfare about tradition in the upcoming marketing scheme. it will be like spray painting a pile of crap pink so it does not look as bad! | |
|
| 
rkrocha
join:2000-09-23
Garland, TX
·RoadRunner Cable
| The guy is clueless... That's like saying that a business built along a toll road owes money to the toll company since that is how that business is getting all of its money. Actually no, the two are working hand in hand. The toll road allows the convenient access to the business, the business attract customers and they travel across the toll road. Both hands make money. If the toll road wants to charge the business additional money for the access, then that cost will be passed on to the customers of the business. Pretty soon, the business loses its customers and the toll loses customers as well. | |
|
JeedaiKnight
0verthinking
Premium
join:2002-03-15
Portland, OR
| Stupid greed It's stupid greed. It's like a car rental company trying to force you to fill up at certain fill stations You pay for the service, you decide what to do with it. 
--
-»www.andycatts.blogspot.com | |
|
rovernet
Premium
join:2004-02-11
Richardson, TX
·AT&T U-Verse
| The best things in life.... Just read a board that reminded:"The best things in life are free". Otherwise, either build them yourself OR pay for it.
The stakes are raised, boys and girls... wait, no, just boys, girls are just having fun all around us.
 | |
|
fgoldstein
join:2003-01-21
Newton Highlands, MA
·RCN CABLE
| He's using doubletalk; he plans IMS His original statement stands; the newer statement is doubletalk, to cover his tracks. He apparently made his first statement just before the FCC ruled on his AT&T acquisition. It backfired: The spineless wonders of the FCC, the two Democrats, refused to approve the deal as chairman Martin wanted it (no conditions), and instead forced him to agree to some kind of limited network neutrality -- for only two years.
But it takes SBC two years to say "hello world", and that gives them time to build their IMS network. IMS is the big thing now in the telecom-gear business, a complex network architecture that uses IP but is as un-Internet-like as possible. IMS is about applications being intermediated within the network, not carried end-to-end. It's about deep packet inspection, not neutral carriage. It's about allocating the whole network via QoS mechanisms, with non-paying ones sharing "hobo class" if not just blocked. Think WAP on steroids, not the Internet we know and love.
They're talking IMS as a way to monetize network upgrades -- don't charge for the pipe, ISP-style, but revive the old message unit concept, wherein the IMS pipe is sold cheap but it's pay, pay, pay to use it. IMS does support video and streaming audio. So his article is doubletalk. The network is not being used just to deliver video, but "building largely" to deliver video. So when the fiber carries Internet too, it falls under the new rules, but gee that's okay because it's all beads on a string, and the bead also carries TV. IMS is "managed and secure", and content on IMS will be charged for. The residual dial-up access to web sites won't be charged for. That's what he won't block. | |
|
flushls
join:2004-11-02
Joyce, WA | HMMMMM... HMMMMMM...... | |
|
radougherty
join:1999-07-23
Austin, TX | This guy should be kept quiet Didn't he also say a few months ago that 99% of SBC customers could get DSL? Hope he retires soon and we get someone who knows what's really going on in the world. | |
|
dninc
| LMAO..Don't make Google buy you out SBC!! Google is on a roll now and i don't think they will be going broke anytime soon with stock at 200 a share lol | |
|
MEGAMERGER
@msu.edu
| FUNNY Off topic, but funny as hell
Will the SBC brand be discarded?
A: No. SBC is a powerful and valued brand and we're very proud of its association with top-notch customer service, reliability, innovation, and stability . The SBC brand will play a supporting role in the new company's multimedia advertising campaign. This will help transition the SBC brand equity into the AT&T brand and alleviate customer confusion.
»www.sbc.com/gen/press-room?pid=7371 | |
|
NewATT
@msu.edu
| Also off topic... The interesting thing is that after all these years and millions of dollars spent to try to raise awareness of and consolidate all their companies and products under the SBC name they will just abruptly abandon it. Maybe it's for the best though, it still isn't even close to the recognizablility of AT&T and it is kind of a hard, cold, corporate acronym name, compared to the legendary, familiar AT&T name. | |
|
jake3_14
join:2005-11-08
1 edit | While SBC focuses on blocking data... they deliver over their shiny new fiber optic pipes, SBC Customers, esp. the coveted younger ones, are migrating their TV viewing to their computers and mobile devices. SBC's TV delivery initiative, Project Lightspeed, is going to fail for this reason, and SBC (and Verizon, for that matter) will be begging internet services to use the optical fiber they're laying down now and threatening to protect.
If the telcos want to fight all the content providers they're trying to sign TV programming contracts with, who will be delivering content to devices other than the TV plus the biggest content providers already traveling the Internet, they're going to lose. | |
|
|
|
|
SBC CEO Slammed For Comments
I guess that's what happens when you wait too long between proofreading and submitting!
