 
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Ed Whitacre Needs New Shoes Man, he sure keeps stepping in it!
--
Tancredo 2008! | |
|
 | chesney09
Premium
join:2004-07-26
Redford, MI
clubs:
| Re: Ed Whitacre Needs New Shoes I'd swear.. everyone is already paying for access to those pipes.. .
I pay a monthly fee just like anyone else that has internet access.. be it business, residential, etc.. We all have to pay for the access to the Information Super highway.. Some of us require faster speeds and more bandwidth, which is reflected in the price!
If they want more money from me, they should really learn how to just provide customer service and not treat them like WE NEED THEM. I think if their customers were happy with the service and Customer Service as a whole.. They would be in a better position and probably make more revenue. Instead they choose to come up with some wackassed ways to create revenue that they really are justified to get. | |
|
| |
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
 ·Comcast
| Re: Ed Whitacre Needs New Shoes said by chesney09  :I'd swear.. everyone is already paying for access to those pipes.. . I pay a monthly fee just like anyone else that has internet access.. be it business, residential, etc.. We all have to pay for the access to the Information Super highway.. Some of us require faster speeds and more bandwidth, which is reflected in the price! No kidding. I am surprised Whitacre's comments haven't sparked a shareholder revolt. This kind of posturing might make AT&T's broadband investments worthless!
I have a small personal website and I am damned sure that I will never pay a nickel to any ISP for the privilege of their customers to see it. I pay for hosting. As far as I am concerned, that's all I should have to pay.
I really do hope that content providers grant AT&T's wish. Companies like Google, Yahoo, Vonage, etc. should degrade traffic to customers from AT&T-owned IP addresses, and/or redirect web requests from those IPs to pages which advertise alternative ISPs.
--
Tancredo 2008! | |
|
| | | 
LinuxJunkie
join:2005-01-19
Cyberspace
| Re: Ed Whitacre Needs New Shoes Exactly. You pay for hosting (just like all the other big content providers) and, in turn, your hosting ISP pays whoever it is that connects them for their own bandwidth. The way AT&T and all the other incumbents talk, it's like the content providers are getting totally free and open access to their pipes which is a load of crap. All this boils down to is the fact that they want to find any way they can to milk shakedown squeeze a few extra million out of people and other companies. | |
|
| | | | dentman42
join:2001-10-02
Columbus, OH | Re: Ed Whitacre Needs New Shoes Of course they're not getting totally free and open access to the pipes. They're getting free and open access to the _TUBES_. Don't you keep up on current events?  | |
|
| | | | | 
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| Re: Ed Whitacre Needs New Shoes Whitacre complained that “some people” want AT&T to act as a “dumb pipe that just keeps getting bigger and bigger." Hey Ed, if you wonder why people are expecting SBC/AT&T to act like a big dumb pipe, maybe you should look in the mirror!
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
|
| | | | |
| | Primis1
join:2005-06-13
Coldwater, MI
| said by chesney09 :I'd swear.. everyone is already paying for access to those pipes.. . I pay a monthly fee just like anyone else that has internet access.. be it business, residential, etc.. We all have to pay for the access to the Information Super highway.. Some of us require faster speeds and more bandwidth, which is reflected in the price! Here's the thing some of you don't understand though:
Just because you pay $x-amount/mo. for your current access does not mean you DESERVE a higher tier as though it were some sort of right. And just because Developer Y wants to have Product Z on the market that is web-intensive doesn't mean the providers have to give them the time of day so they can.
All of us WANT higher speeds at the same or lower prices. It can't happen forever though, and eventually someone is going to have to pay for constant expansion. It's not fair to bash the telecos and cablecos for "not keeping up" -- maybe people should instead focus on software developers and engineers and find out why they can't be more-efficient witht he bandwidth we have *now* instead of the bloat.
That's what I don't get -- why it's all the providers' fault and all these people trying to make elaborate web-based apps (many of which are flat-out unnecessary and require way more overhead than they should) have nobody to answer to. it' snot "progress", it's scapegoating... | |
|
| | |
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| Re: Ed Whitacre Needs New Shoes said by Primis1 :Just because you pay $x-amount/mo. for your current access does not mean you DESERVE a higher tier as though it were some sort of right. No one is asking for a higher tier for free. Whitacre wants companies like Google, Yahoo and any other major content provider to pay AT&T so that AT&T broadband customers will have access to those providers.
--
Tancredo 2008! | |
|
| | | | Primis1
join:2005-06-13
Coldwater, MI
| Re: Ed Whitacre Needs New Shoes said by pnh102 :said by Primis1 :Just because you pay $x-amount/mo. for your current access does not mean you DESERVE a higher tier as though it were some sort of right. No one is asking for a higher tier for free. Whitacre wants companies like Google, Yahoo and any other major content provider to pay AT&T so that AT&T broadband customers will have access to those providers. ...yes, but why? Because these companies keep pushing software and web development beyond what it's really capable of at any given time. In Google and Yahoo's eyes (as examples), ISP's should just "man up" and provide bigger pipes to support their adventures in web-based everything.
The ISP's are naturally none-too happy about that, and their response is "ok then, if you want to do all this, pay us a premium to provide the updates and pipe to allow it".
So yes, it *IS* about higher tiers and speeds. It's about users and companies like Google just assuming/demanding that faster tiers be provided at their whim, whether it's practical for the providers or not. Eventually, it all come sback to developers wanting ISP's to provides end users higher speeds/tiers at ANY cost (because the developers could care less if it's profitable or even makes an sort of fiscal sense).
Look... the internet is NOT meant for what everyone wants to use it for nowadays, and it never will be. Web-based apps and OS's on any large scale will NOT work, because no provider will ever be able to keep up. Software development and scalability is WAY easier than network/bandwidth scalability. Once software developers get this through their thick, empty skulls, maybe we'll get somewhere. Until we do though, this issue isn't ever going to resolve because the ISp's literally CAN'T meet developer demand, and the ISP's will all just go broke trying... | |
|
| | | | | 
King P
Don't blame me. I voted for Ron Paul
Premium
join:2004-11-17
Inman, SC
 ·Windstream
·Charter Pipeline
| Re: Ed Whitacre Needs New Shoes Maybe the reason that the web can't handle these "intensive" apps is because Whitacre pissed away the billions of dollars the government gave him and the other telcos to have fiber laid to all of our homes by 2006.
This nonsense about the web not being able to "handle" apps and software is complete and utter crap. It's not a software developers fault that the Telcos would rather spend precious money lobbying to have municipal fiber initiatives shut down, than invest that money into their own infrastructure to make it better and more "app and software" friendly.
Ed Whitacre is full of crap. Everyone with half a brain cell knows that copper can only go so far and that Fiber is the next step for Telco evolution, but Whitacre would rather whine about people getting a "free ride" on his network and spend money lobbying congress and buying off the FCC. | |
|
| | | | | | 
mackieg4
Premium
join:2003-03-24
Riverside, CA
| Re: Ed Whitacre Needs New Shoes Thank you for that response.
We've been paying these extra "fees" for years on the promise of higher bandwidth. What happened? NOTHING.
Verizon was at least able to bring 30M (now 50M I believe).
Why can Korea have 100M download when we're stuck with 6M with AT&T?
I say BULLSHIT with AT&T. Unfortunately, I'm stuck with them because they are my local provider.
Primis1, you must be a telco cheerleader or employee. | |
|
| | | | | | | short09
join:2006-07-21
| Re: Ed Whitacre Needs New Shoes said by mackieg4 :We've been paying these extra "fees" for years on the promise of higher bandwidth. What happened? NOTHING. Why can Korea have 100M download when we're stuck with 6M with AT&T? koreans pay 41 cents per mb of speed. they dont have anywhere near the amount of bullshit regulations that the usa telcos have. if any such regulations exist im not aware of them. im not sure how long it took korea to deploy 100mb speeds. each korean household gets affordable and fast broadband
the usa telco companies whine to congress about competition in certain regions. they go on tv and talk about mergers. claiming its gonna bring better service faster speeds and lower prices. thats just a bunch of lies. time after time the american people get ripped off by the telcos and regulations. if one single regulation didnt exist american subscribers would have 100mbit cable speeds for maybe $50 - $60 a month tops | |
|
| | | | | | Primis1
join:2005-06-13
Coldwater, MI
| said by King P :Maybe the reason that the web can't handle these "intensive" apps is because Whitacre pissed away the billions of dollars the government gave him and the other telcos to have fiber laid to all of our homes by 2006. This nonsense about the web not being able to "handle" apps and software is complete and utter crap. It's not a software developers fault that the Telcos would rather spend precious money lobbying to have municipal fiber initiatives shut down, than invest that money into their own infrastructure to make it better and more "app and software" friendly. Ed Whitacre is full of crap. Everyone with half a brain cell knows that copper can only go so far and that Fiber is the next step for Telco evolution, but Whitacre would rather whine about people getting a "free ride" on his network and spend money lobbying congress and buying off the FCC. OK, since you're so determined that web-based OS's and apps need to exist... WHY do they need to exist? Give us VALID reasons why they should exist and are absolutely necessary, aside from software companies sensing the gravy train just around the corner.
You can't, none of you can. And that's the point. When it dawns on you finally too, you'll also feel dumb that you ever bought into this whole line of BS and didn't see what was really unfolding before your eyes -- the 100% loss of right of software ownership.
You and anyone else who can't see this is a sucker. | |
|
| | | | | | | Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
| Re: Ed Whitacre Needs New Shoes You have never owned any software. Not a single one! It has always been the property of the company that made it.
Also, the market will decide EVERYTHING when it comes to bandwidth and such. No website is going to purchase more bandwidth then it needs and no provider is going to charge less then they need to to make a profit.
If Google releases some very traffic intense application on their website and they want their customers to be able to use it then they will purchase more bandwidth. If they go to thier provider (Verizon, AT&T or whoever) and say I need 10,000,000Gbps bandwidth per month then that provider is free to charge whatever they feel Google will pay that will earn them a profit. If those 2 can't meet, then Google is free to shop and find that. If it can't be found, then Google can't release that product yet. It is the way the internet has ALWAYS worked and the way it SHOULD ALWAYS work. This is also true of any other market, as it should be. | |
|
| | | | | | | g3ski
join:2004-07-19
San Francisco, CA
| Web based apps are not clogging the pipes. VOIP+torrents are taking up the largest share of web traffic. Podcasts, vlogs, youtube, etc are starting to make up a larger portion of the bandwidth also. That is why providers are traffic shaping voip and torrents. Salesforce.com and other hosted apps are not the problem - ever heard an ISP mention they were going to traffic shape on hosted apps?
The best point made on this forum is that Koreans not only get 100Mb for less than $50/mo, but also that speed is available to most households. The Korean govt and people wanted it to happen and made it happen. In the US many areas are still on dialup, and broadband is limited to 512Kb in areas. That truely sad for a country that can spend billions/day in Iraq (or name other poorly allocated tax dollar here).
Our cel phone, internet, and even power grid are way behind - and the us is supposed to be some sort of world leader. | |
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
LinuxJunkie
join:2005-01-19
Cyberspace
| Re: Ed Whitacre Needs New Shoes Seriously. These scumbags are making money at BOTH ENDS OF THE PIPE. They charge consumers their monthly access for their DSL connections and then on top of that they're already charging Google and Microsoft for their access to the network. BOTH ENDS. Now they're simply trying to say "gee, these sites are pretty popular and get a lot of traffic -- let's see if we can come up with a way to force them to pay even more." They are not using any more or any less bandwidth than what they are already paying for. | |
|
| | | | |
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| said by Primis1 :...yes, but why? Because these companies keep pushing software and web development beyond what it's really capable of at any given time. In Google and Yahoo's eyes (as examples), ISP's should just "man up" and provide bigger pipes to support their adventures in web-based everything. It's ultimately the customer that drives the demand. Say I am a VOIP provider. I know this service doesn't work with 56K. Am I going to expect that the dialup ISPs pay more to provide faster service to their customers who use my service? No... I am going to expect my customers to order broadband service that meets their needs.
--
Tancredo 2008! | |
|
| | | | | moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| said by Primis1 : ...yes, but why? Because these companies keep pushing software and web development beyond what it's really capable of at any given time. In Google and Yahoo's eyes (as examples), ISP's should just "man up" and provide bigger pipes to support their adventures in web-based everything. Back to basic marketing for you.
Why do people get high speed access? Simple surfing (no videos) and email require very little bandwidth. Dial up is sufficient for 99% of web-surfing and email. Usually, the cost is about $10-$25/month (not counting an extra phone line.)
Broadband normally runs around $50/month (not including temporary specials and 1 year introduction prices.) This equates to about the cost of a separate phone line and dial up service.
Now, again, ask yourself this question; why should people get broadband? Without the second phone line and dial up argument, the only one left is speed. How do you justify to someone they need more data transfer speed? APPLICATIONS!!
Video conferencing, VOIP, large downloads, music services, etc. all rely on speed to work properly. Companies have come out with programs to utilize the speed. Google and Yahoo are but 2 but you could also include iTunes and Vonage to name a couple.
said by Primis1 :The ISP's are naturally none-too happy about that, and their response is "ok then, if you want to do all this, pay us a premium to provide the updates and pipe to allow it". So yes, it *IS* about higher tiers and speeds. It's about users and companies like Google just assuming/demanding that faster tiers be provided at their whim, whether it's practical for the providers or not. Eventually, it all come sback to developers wanting ISP's to provides end users higher speeds/tiers at ANY cost (because the developers could care less if it's profitable or even makes an sort of fiscal sense). Anyone want to tell Bill Gates not to develop a bigger OS just because it needs a faster computer to run? 
As for the higher tiers, you forget one thing. Customers are already near the top of what they will pay for internet service so ATT is trying to make others NOT DIRECTLY CONNECTED TO THEIR NETWORK to pay for it. I am not sure who Google and Yahoo use for their connection to the net but I doubt it is the consumer division of ANY ISP.
Compuserve and AOL used to charge by the hour for their walled gardens and, for a while, they did o.k. If you had a faster modem, you paid more per hour. Then, the internet started getting popular and some places charged a flat rate. What they lacked in frills, they made up for in the connection (remind you, this was dial-up still.) So AOL went to an all-you-can-eat connection that caused enough issues that they had to upgrade their entire system.
Now, what would happen if ATT made their DSL a pay per byte service? People would be up in arms. Fact is, there are plenty of people who consume less than their share of bandwidth but still pay for it. There are some that use more than their share but the lesser users make up for that.
Now, Cingular is trying to get rid of people who are "not profitable" and trying to bolster their bottom line. People who use more "free minutes" than they should. 
said by Primis1 :Look... the internet is NOT meant for what everyone wants to use it for nowadays, and it never will be. Web-based apps and OS's on any large scale will NOT work, because no provider will ever be able to keep up. Software development and scalability is WAY easier than network/bandwidth scalability. Once software developers get this through their thick, empty skulls, maybe we'll get somewhere. Until we do though, this issue isn't ever going to resolve because the ISp's literally CAN'T meet developer demand, and the ISP's will all just go broke trying... So we should stop looking for the next killer app until we get a bigger internet? | |
|
| | | | | 
quetwo
That VoIP Guy
Premium
join:2004-09-04
East Lansing, MI | Nobody is forcing the Telcos to partake in the internet -- they decided to go into that business on their own accord. If they don't want to / can't keep up with the internet, then GET THE HECK OUT OF MY WAY! | |
|
| | | | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Ed's too busy selling you $14 DSL service. Ed's too busy raking in the profit on the network. Ed's too busy lowering his price so he has little profit. Ed's too busy not looking at putting money back into the network to keep up with demand. Ed's too busy putting a new face on the same old crap which is Telephone 101. (They've dont htat for their entire existance) Ed is too busy picking enimies in the industry. Ed is too busy using his customers to build a last mile on top of the backbone to shove TV down the throats of their telephone customers in order to compete.
So, how does your phone service look now?
At least cable's $42 internet fee goes back into rebuilding and redeveloping it's network to improve services. In 30 years, how much has cable grown? And in the last 30 years, how much has phone grown?
Anyone care to dispute my statement and it will just show that you are a true blind fan boy.
Phone can't get it right, nor will they ever. | |
|
| | | | | jimbo2150
join:2004-05-10
Youngstown, OH
| In the past companies would charge money for services to make a profit. In turn for this profit, in the future the companies usually "reward" the customers and future customers with upgrades to whatever it is they are selling. This is especially true with services (not so much with products).
Ed is basically saying: "Even though you all payed for your services and we got a big profit from you, we would like you to pay us more to pay for the upgrades to our network just so our precious little investors will not suffer a cut or two for the next couple of years."
Boo hoo. Every business when starting out or even upgrading has to take a short hit on profits, but if they have a good enough product and market it right they will probably make their investment back and then some in a few years.
What is with these businesses lately thinking their profits should never decrease a significant ammount from what they currently are. Every business has to take risks in making upgrads or a new product, whineing about the cost is not going to sell your product faster. | |
|
| | | | NGOwner
join:2000-11-21
Leawood, KS
2 edits | said by pnh102 :No one is asking for a higher tier for free. Whitacre wants companies like Google, Yahoo and any other major content provider to pay AT&T so that AT&T broadband customers will have access to those providers. Sorry, that's not right.
It's a question of preferred access vs. regular access.
Not a question of access vs. no access.
preferred access = new, larger pipes, guaranteed RTT & jitter, better MTTR, etc. Note that the fees for preferred access are paid by the content company (Google, Yahoo, etc.) directly, and not directly (if at all) by you and me (residential broadband subscribers).
regular access = best effort, as it is today
[NG]Owner
--
It is impossible to create an idiot-proof product. Humanity is simply too adept at churning out better idiots. | |
|
| | | | | Necronomikro
join:2005-09-01 | Re: Ed Whitacre Needs New Shoes Then why is Ed Whitacre complaining, and stating that they shouldn't get a free ride? THEY JUST WANT TO PUT QOS ON THE CURRENT EXISTING LINES AND BE DONE WITH IT, THIS WILL **DEPRIORITIZE** SOME TRAFFIC, WHILE **PRIORITIZING** OTHER TRAFFIC. | |
|
| | | | | | 
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
| Re: Ed Whitacre Needs New Shoes said by Necronomikro :Then why is Ed Whitacre complaining, and stating that they shouldn't get a free ride? THEY JUST WANT TO PUT QOS ON THE CURRENT EXISTING LINES AND BE DONE WITH IT, THIS WILL **DEPRIORITIZE** SOME TRAFFIC, WHILE **PRIORITIZING** OTHER TRAFFIC. The problem is that until the Internet goes to IPV6, this is not possible unless the traffic flows ONLY between the user and the content provider over the user's ISP network. Once the data has to go to a peering point and leave the ATT network and flow over some other backbone, the ATT supplied QOS flags on the TCP/IP Packets become useless/meaningless. Only IPV6 supports end-to-end QOS. | |
|
| | | 
normalcomp
@carlson.com
| Maybe the teleco's should learn to operate like a normal business. Where you take part of your profits (or budget for this) and reinvest this back in the company for expansion.
Basic example, you are a garbage company and you are getting more customers. Now you need more trucks to haul the additional garbage. What do they do? Buy more garbage trucks.
If the teleco's ran the garbage company their plan would be that you can only throw out banana peels or get charged for each item (weight). But garbage companies don't charge by the item they charge by the garbage pail size (kinda like different speed tiers you can get 3/512 at one rate and 6/1 at another rate).
Perhaps if the telecos would actually reinvest instead of spending all the profits to their executives in bonuses and stock dividends they would have money to upgrade. | |
|
| | | | 
guitarzan
Premium
join:2004-05-04
Skytop, PA
·epix
| Re: Ed Whitacre Needs New Shoes said by normalcomp :
Basic example, you are a garbage company and you are getting more customers. Now you need more trucks to haul the additional garbage. What do they do? Buy more garbage trucks.
Nah, the Phoneys would rather complain, that their customers are getting their garbage hauled away for free.
--
Bass....the glue of rhythm and harmony...the heartbeat of the band.! Shaking the earth with deep,sonorous vibrations.The dark ominous thunder of an approching storm. | |
|
| | | 
Michieru2
zzz zzz zzz
Premium
join:2005-01-28
Miami, FL
| maybe people should instead focus on software developers and engineers and find out why they can't be more-efficient witht he bandwidth we have *now* instead of the bloat.
I have to say I agree with you there 100%. Ever since DSL came out the size of applications and the bandwidth they consume has dramatically increased. But knowing programmers myself there is only so much you can go down too. There is a limit to how efficient a program can be.
Back in the day of 56k I remember downloading programs that where 500K or lower in size and did jobs that some applications did today but now are 9MB in size.
Although completely unrelated, Universal binaries from Apple Computer contain the code for both Intel and PPC architectures and I noticed that applications almost doubled in size in order to operate.
But as I said earlier more efficient programs have a limit, there is lesser a limit in expansion. | |
|
| | | 
footballdude
Premium
join:2002-08-13
Imperial, MO
| said by Primis1 :All of us WANT higher speeds at the same or lower prices. It can't happen forever though, and eventually someone is going to have to pay for constant expansion. It's not fair to bash the telecos and cablecos for "not keeping up" Dude, don't stand in front of the stampede. The cattle may be ignorant but they'll still grind you down.
--
What's certain about Darwinism is that it would take less time for (1) a single-celled organism to evolve into a human being through mutation and natural selection than for (2) Darwinists to admit they have no proof of (1) - Ann Coulter | |
|
| | |
anonwwwww
@comcast.net
| Bandwidth is bandwidth - I don't understand the confusion??
If I pay $50/mo for a 3mbps internet service to my home or business, I am entitled to use it at up to 3mbps, unless there is a bandwidth-cap agreement and I have reached it.
If I pay $50/mo for a 10mbps hosting service, I am entitled to serve content/files/etc at up to 10mbps until I reach a bandwidth-cap and I have to pay penalties.
Why should it matter what it is that I use it for!?? be it voip, web, ftp, ssh, etc...? Why should it be the ISP's concern if my software that I'm serving is bloated or bandwidth efficient!? I've already paid for the (amount of) bandwidth!! | |
|
| |
Michieru2
zzz zzz zzz
Premium
join:2005-01-28
Miami, FL | "If they want more money from me, they should really learn how to just provide customer service and not treat them like WE NEED THEM."
Best comment I have heard in a while.  | |
|
| kcir
join:2005-07-30
Butner, NC
| Is AT+T giving away free DSL to subscribers? If no, aren't they paying for the content? Do other competing companies subscribers not want that content so they don't have ATTs problem? Or is it just that ATT is so poorly run they can't offer the same price/value as their competitors? | |
|
| |
See 14 replies to this post |
|
| Eric Martin
join:2005-06-19
66308 | These guys have history of nickel and diming people.
They HATE the internet. They want it turned into a cell network with obscene prices.
They are the 180 of the original purpose of the net - research. | |
|
| |
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| Re: Transforming the internet into cell phone networks said by Eric Martin :They HATE the internet. They want it turned into a cell network with obscene prices. Funny you mention cell network. Had AT&T never been broken up in 1984, we might not have seen the kind of technological progress in that department either.
--
Tancredo 2008! | |
|
| Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
| Corperate america as a whole isnt very good at adapting to the market. problem is big corperations thanks to stock holders are slaves to the quarter, a multibillion dollar multiyear fiber investment will pay off in 6-10 years but investors dont want 6-10 years they want next quarter.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
|
|
guitarzan
Premium
join:2004-05-04
Skytop, PA
·epix
| said by pnh102 :Man, he sure keeps stepping in it! I guess, Ed "internet cloud" Whiteacre toned down his rhetoric.. This is not quite the news article i was looking for, yet, close.»AT&T Chief: Net Neutrality Crowd Scare Mongering
I thought the cry baby laid his plan , of charging everyone to rest, guess not.
--
Bass....the glue of rhythm and harmony...the heartbeat of the band.! Shaking the earth with deep,sonorous vibrations.The dark ominous thunder of an approching storm. | |
|
qdemn7
Smurf in My Loop
Premium
join:2003-09-16
Fort Worth, TX
| That's Exactly What I Want.... said by Whitacre :
“some people” want AT&T to act as a “dumb pipe that just keeps getting bigger and bigger."
That's what I want, I don't want any of your other crap.
--
“What's wrong mate? Did you run your Ship of Fools aground again?" | |
|
| 
dadkins
Can you do Blu?
Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
·Comcast
| Re: That's Exactly What I Want.... said by qdemn7 : said by Whitacre :
“some people” want AT&T to act as a “dumb pipe that just keeps getting bigger and bigger."
That's what I want, I don't want any of your other crap. Ya know, if the pipe was big enough, packet priority would be a non-issue.
Tons of room in the "tubes" for several "dumptrucks"(ala Ted Stevens) to do a freakin vehicle ballet!
Lay the fiber, open it up, and get on with life!
If xx provider is to anal to lay fiber in yy town, let that *MUNI* fibertize itself!
Quit pissing and just do it! 
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera | |
|
guitarzan
Premium
join:2004-05-04
Skytop, PA
·epix
| Nobody Gets a Free Ride Whitacre complained that quote:
“some people” want AT&T to act as a “dumb pipe that just keeps getting bigger and bigger."
Every time Whiteacre opens his pie hole and speaks, he proves himself, "dumber and dumber.
--
Bass....the glue of rhythm and harmony...the heartbeat of the band.! Shaking the earth with deep,sonorous vibrations.The dark ominous thunder of an approching storm. | |
|
|
dadkins
Can you do Blu?
Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
·Comcast
| Re: Nobody Gets a Free Ride said by guitarzan :Whitacre complained that quote:
“some people” want AT&T to act as a “dumb pipe that just keeps getting bigger and bigger."
Every time Whiteacre opens his pie hole and speaks, he proves himself, "dumber and dumber. LOL!
I used to think there was a threshold of how stupid one person could be and still be alive... Whitacre has blown that completely out of the water! 
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera | |
|
| | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20 | Re: Nobody Gets a Free Ride Ed's just getting bigger pipes... if he can have them, why doesn't he give them to everyone else?
One of these days, someone will point out that the emperor has no clothes. | |
|
Mr Anon
@172.16.x.x
 from:
tsu9
| Wha? Maybe he hasn't noticed this little thing called customers, you know the ones that send you money every month for the services you bring into their house/businesses.
Just because the government double taxes and over charges doesn't mean that its a practice that should happen. | |
|
DaSneaky1D
one wall to block them all
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-29
The Lou
·Charter Pipeline
| Take Ed's threats seriously With SBC getting AT&T's network, Ed can say and spout anything he wants because, not only does he control the last mile, he controls the backbone as well. He can travel his own network without handing off data to a peer across nearly the entire Internet.
It's scary to hear him continue to speak like this because he has the network to back up his words. This will eventually become a competition of "who has a lower tariff", AT&T or Verizon.
--
:: my trivial ramblings :: | |
|
|
See 14 replies to this post |
|
rmdir
join:2003-03-13
Chicago, IL | solution AT&T just needs to build more of those tubes, that's all. | |
|
Mizzat
Will post for thumbs
Premium
join:2003-05-03
Atlanta, GA
·AT&T Southeast
| He has a pont He has a point, but we as consumers don't want to realize it. DSL prices get cheaper and speeds get faster, while more subscribers are signing up requiring a bigger backbone, that data has to flow through someone, and that is increasingly becoming AT&T throughout most of the country. I don't see anywhere in that article that the consumers are footing the bill or prices are going to rise, though I'm sure we will foot the bill either way,l but we are also the consumers wanting more, and I've never been able to truly get more for less money. Interesting article and it looks like the writer actually took a neutral stance on the report. That isn't found much, especially on this site. | |
|
|
See 7 replies to this post |
|
odog
Cable Centric Vendor Biased
Premium
join:2001-08-05
Norcross, GA
clubs: | Get it right man.... They are TUBES! a Scientist said so. You may be dumb... but your pipes are not. | |
|
qdemn7
Smurf in My Loop
Premium
join:2003-09-16
Fort Worth, TX
| You Know.... I think I'd rather just go ahead and have "tiers" based on number of gigs per month that all this QOS crap. Seem simpler in the long run. Of course they would have to change their advertising of "Unlimited Service", but so what?
--
“What's wrong mate? Did you run your Ship of Fools aground again?" | |
|
|
See 7 replies to this post |
|
cableties
Premium
join:2005-01-27
 ·Verizon FIOS
| Gee...T E... I would venture that all those prices for DS3, OC12 and up aren't enough? Multiply those times the companies that lease the lines, monthly, and that is alot of cash for something that hardly requires maintenance copper does (Activating dark fiber is not as costly as perceived. It's already there, and considering they keep figuring out compression and ways to get more signal on a strand of glass...)
Tubes! Vee must activate zee tubes, ya? | |
|
tsu9
join:2001-08-17
Wheeling, IL | Idiot. “Nobody gets a free ride, that’s all.”
Of course not. It costs consumers $30-50 a month, and content providers a helluvalot more.
Now get back to work, you slacker. | |
|
rudnicke
Premium
join:2004-10-23
Rantoul, IL | Holy Sh*t! This guy is a complete idiot! | |
|
Yowzaaah
Ours Go To Eleven
join:2000-12-14
DamnFlat, OH
clubs: | Plain & Simple Eddie & the Deathstars want to make money the old fashion way. By charging more and delivering the same or less. In this case they are trying to charge multiple people for a service already paid for by their customers.
He's a greedy turd. | |
|
PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR
| 'dumb pipe' is the heart of the matter... This quote is the most succinct summary of the "net neutrality" issue I've seen. He's saying he wants to extract as much value for AT&T as possible; rather than just getting paid for provding Layer 1-3 of the communications stack, he wants a share of some of that upper layer value-added revenue, too.
I heard the exact same thing from a Cable exec a few years ago, "we have no intention of becoming a fat dumd pipe, even though we know everyone wants us to be". The cable companies avoid criticism by using most of the 'pipe' for non-IP things like TV channels. | |
|
| 
Transmaster
Don't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY
·Qwest.net
| Phooey This is from Common Cause:
Cyber Scrooge: You can say one thing about Ed Whitacre, CEO of SBC Communications: He doesn't mince words. Whitacre recently told Business Week that Internet firms like Google, Yahoo and Vonage should have to pay him to reach web users. "Now what they would like to do is use my pipes free, but I ain't going to let them do that," Whitacre said. Whitacre apparently believes that it's not enough that SBC Communications makes a profit by charging subscribers for access to the Internet. His company also wants to make a buck by charging web sites and other web services for the privilege of providing SBC with the content that makes SBC customers want to use the Internet in the first place. Critics have compared that to paying to send a package by United Parcel Service, and then giving UPS the right to charge the person who gets the package, too.
--
The older I get the more I prefer the company of my dogs over that of man kind. | |
|
sporkme
drop the crantini and move it, sister
Premium,MVM
join:2000-07-01
Morristown, NJ
·Optimum Online
| Short Version Ed shoots off mouth, tells the world that AT&T is a mismanaged entity that has been selling their services at a loss and is now looking to force people who are not customers to now be customers.
It's pretty embarrassing... this is AT&T and they cannot sell things at a profit? Way to go, Ed!
Maybe he's looking for a VZ buyout? | |
|
| 
danny9894
Student
join:2004-03-05
Minneapolis, MN | Re: Short Version Whitacre is only making customers second guess why the have service from this company, I really hope their stocks go down the tube (Not 'ole Teddies tubes). | |
|
grandpinaple
join:2006-01-03
New York, NY | The headline is incorrect It was not Whiteacre who started this it was Bellsouth trying to cash in on the misfortunes of Katrina. Honestly, Bell South's reaction warranted a public apology it was the equivalent of someone famous making heinous remarks. | |
|
Rick
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-06
Waterbury, CT
clubs: 
| Ok..I hear ya. Nobody gets a free ride. And you have to build it.
So..when are you going to start BUILDING it is my question?
You know, the FIBER to the home network that Verizon is doing and that those of us in AT&T land would love to see as competition here to what amounts to only one real choice..which is now Comcast.
The fact of the matter is, to many people today..you...AT&T..are pretty much a second rate has been kind of company.
Ouch..those words sting..I know..but what else can you be referred to as?
Landlines that I sure don't want with my cell phone now.
384k to 1500k dsl service that is all that many of your customers qualify for.
TV service via some satellite provider that you don't own.
Sorry, but you have nothing I want nor need today. And you have nothing to compete with the cable monopoly that is Comcast today.
They have the speeds.the video.the hdtv..the on demand..and now, they're taking your phone customers away from you too.
By the hundreds of thousands per quarter.
You are being reduced to AOL..with their loss of all those dialup customers.
What has been your response to date? A block party for Uverse customers in san Antonio who can't even get much of what TV service should be today.
And, speeds that barely amount to half of what many cable providers today are giving their customers, and what verizon is doing.
AT&T..you are risking your future.
You are making yourself obsolete.
And that's not a very good business decision to be making.
--
The life you help save just might be your own Team Discovery | |
|
anonwwwww
@comcast.net | Yes - ATT and ISP's is a "dumb-pipe" Would you be pissed if telephone company forces you to talk "slower" if the conversation to your mother was about your family, but you can talk normally if it was about the weather instead?? | |
|
viperpa33s
Why Me?
Premium
join:2002-12-20
Bradenton, FL
·Bright House
| Are we really getting a free ride? Are we really getting a free ride or is it just allot of hoopla spewed out by a disgruntled CEO? I pay $60 a month for DSL, so does that mean I get a free ride? The company I work for pays $50,000 + a month in bandwidth costs, does that mean they get a free ride? I am sure Google pays allot more in bandwidth costs, does that mean they are getting a free ride?
I hate to say it but if it wasn't for all the content on the internet, at&t would be the dumbest pipe of all. All the content on the internet is why people sign up for at&t's DSL service. If you take the content out of the equation, why would people have the need to sign up for high speed broadband?
How come at&t isn't making the t.v. networks pay to use at&t's pipes? The reason why is cause if it wasn't for the content at&t wouldn't need to roll out IPTV right? So at&t pays the t.v. networks to broadcast there shows across at&t's network. Funny, I thought it was the dumb pipe that makes people sign up for DSL.
Wait a minute, didn't at&t spend billions to upgrade there network so they can roll out IPTV? What return is at&t getting for it, not much since at&t has to pay the t.v. networks to carry there shows. | |
|
| 
batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ
clubs:
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: Are we really getting a free ride? said by viperpa33s :I pay $60 a month for DSL I pay $29.95 for DSL Connect Rate (Down/Up)3360 KBits/Sec by 864 KBits/Sec. You have Sprint, I have Verizon.
»/gmaps/dslr?ty···5&zoom=5 | |
|
| |
viperpa33s
Why Me?
Premium
join:2002-12-20
Bradenton, FL | Re: Are we really getting a free ride? Do you think your getting a free ride? I should ask do you think that $29.95 covers what you upload or download or do you think you should be paying more? | |
|
| | |
batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ
clubs:
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: Are we really getting a free ride? said by viperpa33s :Do you think your getting a free ride? I should ask do you think that $29.95 covers what you upload or download or do you think you should be paying more? I think I should have FIOS, DSL is only a temporary solutions. It was not that long ago that dial-up cost more then my DSL does today. I get 50 times the speed for the same price. With FIOS I would get 500 times the speed for a little more.
At this point in time few people get ultra high speed connections. When HDTV becomes available from third party providers over IP protocols many more people will want the ultra high speed connections. Something has to give.
I don't have FIOS because of government restrictions and regulations. How long will you have to wait for Sprint to run fiber? Someone has to pay or it won't get done.
Net-neutrality fine, get ready for clogged tubes. | |
|
ftthz
If love can kill hate can also save
join:2005-10-17 | pay now or later ... at&t will have to upgrade sooner or later to stay competitive | |
|
|
|
|
AT&T Whitacre: 'Nobody Gets a Free Ride'
·