page: 1 · 2  |
 
packetscan
Premium
join:2004-10-19
Bridgeport, CT
clubs:
 ·Optimum Online
1 edit | Key Words "Tariff"
I got Your Tariff right here ED!
"They shouldn’t get on [the network] and expect a free ride."
What Turnip Truck did you fall off of? We all pay, Not one person is getting a free ride!
(My last post before i blow a blood-vessel in my head!) | |
|  | 
King P
Don't blame me. I voted for Ron Paul
Premium
join:2004-11-17
Inman, SC
 ·Windstream
·Charter Pipeline
| Ed is a genius! My question is this:
What happens if ALL content providers were to pay this stupid tariff to Mr. Ed? How can he say which service will get better QoS, if they are all supposedly getting the "best" QoS. The only thing I can think of would be that they all get mediocre QoS and then Ed gets more money, for the same crappy service.
I wish he would just shut up, or else become struck dumb. These content providers are already paying for their internet access just like we are...
--
Forget 'em, Support the Indies.»www.ind-music.com | |
| | | deepblackmag
join:2004-12-27
00000
| Re: Ed is a genius! ...And while the greedy asses in charge continue to stuff their pockets the USA falls farther behind in any sort of real internet connectivity. Africa is putting in a hundred million dollar IPv6 backbone running up both coasts, to europe and asia. We have to listen to retards complain they arent rich enough yet. Neatherland universities get 40gbps hookups. We get higher prices and slower service. Third world countries are leaving us in the dust. WTF does that make us then? A 4th world country? This place sucks, if anybody wants to talk to me, i'll be in south korea. | |
| | | | jtorre69
join:2005-12-26
Hollywood, FL
| Re: Ed is a genius! Tell me about it! I live in an area served by Bellsouth with IFITL(fiber to the curb) that they put in about 5 years ago. They don't want to spend money to upgrade some part until they get a return on it, and I'm stuck at 1.5mpsx256k. WTF!!!! We have comcast already offering 8mbps. Don't they understand that people will leave??????? | |
| | | dentman42
join:2001-10-02
Columbus, OH
·AT&T Midwest
| said by King P  :I wish he would just shut up, or else become struck dumb. These content providers are already paying for their internet access just like we are... Umm...I'd say his comments are proof that he's ALREADY been struck dumb (or maybe struck outright stupid).
Hey Ed...I'm trying your 14.99/month DSL right now. You start playing this tiering bullcrap and you know what? I won't even use your service for FREE, I'll go to another provider that doesn't pull that crap. So will your other subs. Then you won't have to worry about those nasty content providers clogging up your network - because you won't have anybody pulling content through your network. We'll all be using your competitors' services!
ATT/SBC investors - want your company to survive? Band together and oust Ed Whitacre! | |
| | 
GOLFnSUN
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
1 edit | Re: Key Words they argue that content providers seeking guaranteed delivery of high quality content should be willing to pay.
“If someone wants to transmit a high quality service with no interruptions and ‘guaranteed this, guaranteed that’, they should be willing to pay for that,” the AT&T chief said. You mention Key Words, and I think the above highlighted words are also key. AT&T isn't saying they won't deliver content. All they are saying is that if you want to make sure it gets there on time and real time, then you may have to pay extra to get in the proprietary high speed lane instead of going thru the regular shared internet.
All the main ISP companies have built their own fiber nets(not the ones shared with all others(Level3, Cogent, UUnet, etc). And they built those to deliver their own content at high QOS standards for VOIP, videos, etc. All they are asking is that if others want to ride on the limited access private turnpike instead of the public highway that they kick in a fee.
And if a law prevents that, then the costs to their users are going to rise. So the end user is going to pay more no matter what. Either to the content providers or to the network providers.
But we have 2 classes of users - those who will use these new bandwidth intensive apps and those who won't. Under the content providers pay model, only the intensive users will pay. Under the network providers pay model, everyone pays - even those who only do email and regular browsing. The content providers pay model is fairer to the majority of the users. Though the biggest heaviest users will complain when they have to carry more of the costs they are causing.
Maybe the network providers(ISPs) will have to move to a bytes/mo model instead of flat rates. That way the content providers won't pay extra and the end users will pay based upon how much bandwidth they consume.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
My Web Page | |
| | | 
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
·DSL EXTREME
| Re: Key Words The other terms you have to check would be the fine print, along with that quote. Someone may state that it does not appear to be 'high quality content' and therefore the guarantee is null and void. Also, the TOS would most likely state that there are conditions to be met - i.e. certified AT&T installation, running AT&T equipment with your PC having AT&T software installed (spyware?), no 900MHz/2.4 GHz phones in the house, and that would still not guarantee outage due to line cut, power outage, upstream provider issue, etc.
quote:
they argue that content providers seeking guaranteed delivery of high quality content should be willing to pay.
I had 2 business T1's go out for more than a day (fiber cut) - and that was paying for high availability.
On a frame relay circuit into Northern California, it went down for more than a week, as 2 telcos + external had to be involved. MCI was the service provider, SBC was the local end in So. Cal., Frontier (ugh!) was the telco in Northern Ca which had a failure on a channel bank, and had to do a rebuild. Since Frontier was literally 'frontier' - SBC couldn't put in a local call through their automated system, but had to send a letter to Frontier, as it was so antiquated. | |
| | | 
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| said by GOLFnSUN :... But we have 2 classes of users - those who will use these new bandwidth intensive apps and those who won't. Under the content providers pay model, only the intensive users will pay. Under the network providers pay model, everyone pays - even those who only do email and regular browsing. The content providers pay model is fairer to the majority of the users. Though the biggest heaviest users will complain when they have to carry more of the costs they are causing. Maybe the network providers(ISPs) will have to move to a bytes/mo model instead of flat rates. That way the content providers won't pay extra and the end users will pay based upon how much bandwidth they consume. And your second example ("per byte" pricing) is how it SHOULD work. This most closely matches the "cost causer" with the "cost bearer" and doesn't send the mixed economic signals that running the charge through a third party (the content provider) does.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
| | | 
asdfdfdf
@xtraport.net
 from:
SRFireside
| I call shenanigans.
None of the apologists have yet explained why there is this belligerent rhetoric about freeloaders like google?
Is google riding on this mythical "private turnpike"? Are they demanding that att give them special privilege on the internet? Are people not content with the best effort delivery of google content? Google runs on the "best effort" network right now. How is that freeloading if what you claim is true? Either whitacre considers google running on the best effort network to be freeloading or there is no rational basis for his claiming freeloading because google is NOT running on this "private turnpike". He makes it very clear that the present level of service that google receives is TOO HIGH. Whatever his rhetoric, this means he intends to reduce it.
If this is about creating the mythic private network why doesn't whitacre shut his blowhole, build this mythical network and then see if people are willing to pay the premium for it?
Because there is no mythical private turnpike. What he intends to do is take the present network and impose a more extensive traffic prioritization scheme upon it. The prioritization of certain traffic implies the deprioritizing of other traffic. There is no separate network where traffic is sent without affecting the "best effort" network. That is a lie being spouted to suggest that the water level for some boats can be lifted without lowering the water level for the other boats.
"But we have 2 classes of users - those who will use these new bandwidth intensive apps and those who won't."
You can't equate this with the notion of a public and private network. You start out talking about 2 networks, but it again clear that this is not what we are talking about. Apps are content. The behavior of the app is limited by the size of the pipe that the customer has paid for. If you want to sell different service levels for different users requirements you simply sell different size pipes at different price points. There is no justification for an additional levy, on any particular pipe size, based on the "type of app" unless a company is trying to stifle particular apps to protect its revenue generation on its own apps. | |
| | 
techjoe
Premium
join:2004-02-20
Schererville, IN
| All I keep hearing is 'Blah blah blah more money blah blah blah'. If you can't handle transfering data to and from your PAYING customers, you're in the wrong fscking business buddy!!!
I wonder if he makes this request with a straight face..I sure wouldn't be able to. 
--
www.clanc.cc | |
| | 
insomniac84
join:2002-01-03
Schererville, IN
| They are just jealous of the oil industry and how they can just charge more and get away with it. Unfortunately bandwidth isn't traded on the stock market with an arbitrary meaningless price that can be exploited to charge more money for pure profit. | |
| harknell
join:2003-12-23
Highland Park, NJ
| Umm, don't Google, Yahoo, etc pay already? Excuse me if I'm wrong, but Google, Yahoo, etc... they aren't all sitting in some library somewhere accessing the internet for free. They are paying for their network access to the internet just like every other ISP or network. It's not like they're some guys sitting in a parking lot using someone else's wifi.
So where does all of this extra payment crap and the so called cloud come from? Yup, someone's ass..... | |
| | 
cdru
Go Colts
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
| Re: Umm, don't Google, Yahoo, etc pay already? said by harknell :Excuse me if I'm wrong, but Google, Yahoo, etc... they aren't all sitting in some library somewhere accessing the internet for free. You mean Google isn't run from some hacked wifi? Huh. Who would have guessed. 
--
"What gives them the right to come in and do this?" she said. - Lady complaining that she was getting FIOS in her backyard. | |
| garmst
join:2000-09-17
New York, NY
| Ed, just stop posturing and do it! Ed, cut your peering, NOW! Cut off your connections to those 'freeloaders' who give your so called network some meaning and value for your subscribers to use. Let your subscribers not be able to get to Google, Yahoo, Ebay, their friends and employers. Then keep it off until all of your customers switch to your competitors, hell even dial-up!
Please Ed, stop talking and just do it! Let's get it over and done with. | |
| | 
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA
| Re: Ed, just stop posturing and do it! Yup. He should just sever all connections from his network to the Internet. Then he can try to cut deals where content providers will set up shop on his own network. They will pay him for the privilege and give the content to the users for free or a reduced rate. Let's call this scenario a "Walled Garden."
Wait a second, this sounds familiar. If I'm not mistaken, Another OnLine company tried this before and eventually had to allow their customers on the Internet. I'd actually like to see him try to wall off his network. I'd be willing to take bets on how long such an experiment would last before the customers fled and the shareholders tossed him out onto the street. 
--
-Jason Levine
My Gallery | Jason's Toolbox | PCQandA.com | URateit.com | |
| | | iotastorm
join:2006-01-24
Florissant, MO
·AT&T DSL Service
| Re: Ed, just stop posturing and do it! Actually it was UUNet, as I recall (from memory, an unstable vessel) UUNet was threatening something similar and ended up being their own 'Internet' for 3 days with no connects to most of the world before whashisname gave in and they all re-connected him. | |
| | elisjourney
mixologist2
join:2004-04-21
Huntsville, AL | Ed is pretty much a crackpot -- remember not too long ago when he said he had plans of changing the "Cingular" name to "at&t"? Cingular and BellSouth (one of Cingular's parents along with at&t) both pretty much said that wasn't going to happen. | |
| | | | 
Brianv5
Low Level Functionary
Premium
join:2001-01-20
Keyser, WV | Re: Hey you Mr. Whitacre-ShitBag Exactly. Does he think Google or anyone else has a free pipe coming to their data center?
I'm quite sure they are already paying for their connection!
--
More power never hurt anything. | |
| | 
n2jtx
join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY
·Optimum Online
| I couldn't have said it better myself. This (BLANKETY BLANK) CEO wants more money for nothing. The content providers already pay to access the internet through ISP's. Just another lame-a$$ CEO looking to line his pockets.
Someone please show him the door...
--
I support the right to keep and arm bears. | |
| | | 
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| Major Content Providers should block AT&T Now This silliness is only going to end when major content providers like Google block access to AT&T customers. If Google puts up a page that says something like "Sorry, AT&T won't allow us to let you use Google. We suggest you switch to the following ISPs (showing alternate ISPs in your area, with contact info)", AT&T, and any other ISP as well, will back down from this stupid idea.
--
Rove / Rumsfeld 2008! | |
| 
CO_Chris
Premium
join:2001-08-28
Broomfield, CO | Get Off the CRACK you tard Ed step back from that CRACK PIPE please.This is why we need to help people getting off drugs for people like.. Thank god i don't have SBC anymore. | |
| | |
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA
| Re: Companies Making Money Off of Phone Calls Shhh.... Don't give them any ideas.
said by Ed Whitacre in a few weeks :
"Why should the local pizza delivery place make money by getting access to my customers without giving me a cut? They should pay me to get access to my customers. Of course, I'm not going to cut off any businesses, but the ones that pay me will find that the customers calling them are clearer and don't get disconnected for no apparent reason."
--
-Jason Levine
My Gallery | Jason's Toolbox | PCQandA.com | URateit.com | |
| | |
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| Re: Companies Making Money Off of Phone Calls Actually, the Baby Bells have done essentially this for twenty years--they were called "access charges" and the long distance carriers couldn't carry long distance calls without paying a kickback to the local companies on each end--for the use of the local facilities that subscribers were already paying for through monthly fees.
The Bells' attitude was "we own the customer" and "you don't get to reach our subscriber customer without paying an extra charge to us."
Anyone can see the result--the "fee" charged for long distance access essentially enabled the Bells to undercut the LD companies on price and drive them into the ground to the degree where they had no choice but to sell out--MCI to VZ and ATT to SBC.
If Google and the gang stand for this, they'll find themselves competing with the Bell's own offerings and paying an override for the privilege of doing so.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
| amungus
Premium
join:2004-11-26
America
clubs:
| for real here we go again...
the cloud eh? well whatever cloud this guy's head remains in, he needs to clear it out real quick...
no kidding there's no 'free' ride, and no kidding we already pay for net access... so does anyone who hosts anything.
why do people like this guy get paid to do anything at all???
looking at a movie for example?? what, does he still think the internet is being used simply to send and recieve emails?
Got big news for you buddy, this thing we call the internet, guess what, people use it now instead of just letting it sit there and randomly spew out text.
guess what else, I already pay for music/video services, and guess what... THEY PAY for THEIR END TOO!!!
Grow up and shut your trap you ignorant moron.
Come out of that 'cloud' of smoke your head seems to be in.
It's too late, you missed the boat, go crawl off and cry about it. | |
| 
WaxPhoto
I AM SAM
Premium
join:2004-04-08
Roanoke, IN | Speaking of free rides... Eddy boy must have an interesting position on telecom subsidies... | |
| moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| Well, at least they got the name right.... Calling it a QoS "Tariff" is just about what it is; an extra tax.
Now, reading the article shows the extreme short sighted nature of today's investors.
quote:
The major US telecommunications providers, including T&T, have come under pressure from their investors in part because of their hefty investments in new fibre optic-based networks capable of delivering advanced TV and video services to their customers.
Seems none of these investors heard of building for the future.
How many times have certain automakers implemented regulations AHEAD of schedule? Those that have, are in a better position than those doing it at the last minute.
Face it, the internet is getting bigger, the content is getting bigger and the amount of users is getting bigger. Without a backbone or infrastructure, the data will be going slower and slower and congestion will become a problem. If something is not done now, when will it be done? | |
| | 
mdlthomas
join:2000-04-24
Clarksville, TN
| Re: Well, at least they got the name right.... Oh...he is prolly just mad because he lost a dual OC 192 RFP to UUNet, or Level 3. Now he is accusing Google of using the network for free because they aren't paying him directly, only the backbone providers interconnect fee.
Everybody is calling on Ed th STHU (Shut The...), but why don't we consentrate our efforts toward Google, and actually get them to Boycott AT&T.
It is time for the new school of CEO's to stop taking crap from the old school CEO's and stand up, put up their dukes, and FIGHT!! | |
| | | moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: Well, at least they got the name right.... said by mdlthomas :Everybody is calling on Ed to STHU (Shut The...), but why don't we consentrate our efforts toward Google, and actually get them to Boycott AT&T. It is time for the new school of CEO's to stop taking crap from the old school CEO's and stand up, put up their dukes, and FIGHT!! This would be a bad idea.
Right now, Ed is digging his own grave.
Let's say that ATT implemented this "QoS tariff." Let's also assume Google refuses to pay up and gets the "best effort" treatment. All Google has to do is put up something that basically says,
quote:
Dear ATT customer,
Due to ATT's implementation of a QoS Tax, your connection to our site might be slower than normal. This is because ATT has decided it wants to charge Google more to be delivered to the you.
Google already pays for its connection to the internet. We do not feel we should have to pay an axtra "tax" just to make sure that anyone using our service, actually gets the data they are looking for.
The internet is not just ATT or Google but a vast network of computers from all around the world. Should everyone have to pay extra just to use ATT's part of the network? Is censorship of sites that won't pay up next?
We, at Google, hope you, the ATT customer, will let your displeasure be known so that everyone can access whatever data they want without having to pay an extra "tax" just to get it.
Let ATT hang themselves with their own rope. Who is to say that other backbone providers hit up ATT for a "QoS tax?" | |
| | | | mtekk
join:2004-12-29
Chanhassen, MN | Re: Well, at least they got the name right.... Well that would work, but what about the cable internet users which connect into the ATT network because that's what is beyond the cable co, such as Mediacom in Minnesota, I would get screwed over because of this ignorant @$$hat | |
| 
justbits
More fiber than ATT can handle
Premium
join:2003-01-08
Chicago, IL
·AT&T Midwest
·AT&T Yahoo
| Internet cloud??? Come on A young child, staring at the clouds, spoke to Ed: "Do not try to bend the cloud--that's impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth."
Ed asked him, "What truth?"
The child answered, "That there is no cloud."
Ed meditated on this. "There is no cloud."
The child continued: "Then you will see that it is not the cloud that bends--it is only yourself."
And Ed was enlightened.
--justbits | |
| 
rudnicke
Premium
join:2004-10-23
Rantoul, IL | Contact I wish there were some way to contact Mr. Whitacre so people could tell him he has his head up his stinky little greedy ass. | |
| Cyber2lz
join:2001-11-15
Odessa, FL | New company New company name, same old tired, outdated, unimaginative "Bell think".
Ed, do us a favor and just retire, before your company goes broke because of your stooooopid ideas! | |
| | dlampert
join:2004-03-27
Chicago, IL
| Re: New company said by Cyber2lz :New company name, same old tired, outdated, unimaginative "Bell think". You're not kidding! It has long been a Bellhead dream to charge a fee to both sides of a phone call. Ed thinks that he can be the one to finally do it. | |
| | | ross
join:2000-08-16 | Re: New company Wireless already accomplishes this feat. | |
| 
rweeb5
join:2000-08-09
Cleveland, OH
1 edit | Bandwidth Everyone pays based on the size of their connection to the cloud right? Who pays to make the cloud bigger or more efficient? Not sure how someone like Google pays now, strictly by the number of pipes into the cloud?
I think eventually we all will pay based on amount of data we are sending or receiving, not just pipe size. Electricity is $.x/kw, data will be $.x/packet. Think I'll invest in data compression.
| |
| | 
G_Poobah
join:2004-01-17
Schenectady, NY
| Re: Bandwidth Another person who truly doesn't understand how data networks work..
#1: Unlike electricity/water/gas, there is NO PRODUCTION COST. Period.. It doesn't cost money to 'make a byte' per say, so the concept of charging a 'production' fee is ludicrious.
#2: A network pipe is what's known as transient. (Like electricity) If you have a line capable of carrying 100mb/sec, and it's only moving 1mb/sec, the COST of that is exactly the same. In every instant of time, the bandwidth is either 'in use' or 'not in use'. You don't save any money if a 100mb pipe is only being used at 1% of it's capacity. You don't spend any more money if a 100mb pipe is running at 50% of it's capacity. It's all a capital expenditure up front.
#3: So, we have a large up front capital cost (like electricity/water/gas lines), but UNLIKE those, we have no unit cost. If you are running at 100% usage on a cable(which in the business world is what you want to do), and you need more, you MUST invest capital to increase capabilities. However, that does not change the unit cost. In order for a business selling bandwidth to succeed, it's got to build the right level of capital, and get it's return based on that capital expenditure + overhead.
#4: To sum it up, the ONLY people who pay bt the byte, are those who are extorted (i.e. no competition) into it. The only business model that could ever succeed 'by the byte', would be one had requires monopoly/duopoly powers, and doesn't give the consumer choice. The 'pipe' business model that we currently use, just plain WORKS, which is why 99% of all the ISP's use it.
--
Sure the internet has lots of porn and piracy, but I'm sure there's a downside to it. | |
| | |
rweeb5
join:2000-08-09
Cleveland, OH
| Re: Bandwidth said by G_Poobah :Another person who truly doesn't understand how data networks work... Thank you all knowing one for your wisdom. I'm just a dummy but not an idiot so items #1,2, &3 weren't necessary but may enlighten a few of us.
said by G_Poobah :The 'pipe' business model that we currently use, just plain WORKS, which is why 99% of all the ISP's use it. Seriously, what do you see twenty years down the road, the same system?
--
If it ain't broke....fix it! | |
| | | |
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| Re: Bandwidth The Poobah and I have had this discussion before--I basically agree with the Poobah that the end user is the only party the ISP should charge for the end user's connection to the Internet, but we disagree on Poobah's characterization of the ISP as having only fixed costs.
Every ISP uses some form of shared facilities between their customers and the Internet--nobody builds a full and complete pipe between every end user and every peering point. As usage increases, these shared facilities do indeed need to get bigger, and the cost of these bigger pipes will end up being reflected either in higher monthly charges all around or some form of "usage sensitive" pricing (unless Big Ed succeeds in extorting the content providers.)
I believe that it is correct that as we move away from broadband usage that only involves "burst" transmissions (say of a web page with pictures and graphics) and towards "continuous" traffic (either streaming content or heavy file downloading) then higher ISP costs will need to be recovered somewhere.
Frankly, I suspect that the cause of at least some of Big Ed's anxiety on this issue is one or more of the following:
1. that his current pricing model is flawed,
2. that he's seen the cost figures on what upgrading his DSLAMs and fiber links is going to cost,
3. that he's seen how cable ISPs will be doing it for less money,
4. that wireless ISPs' options are far more flexible and not much, if any, more costly, and
5. that without at least some harebrained scheme like milking Google for more cash, the "new at&t" is facing explaining either higher prices to customers or smaller margins to investors if they want to avoid potential Sarbanes-Oxley violation claims.
I think Big Ed has realized that his DSL pricing is unsustainable and he's madly grasping for a paddle to get himself back out of the creek.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
| | 
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
| That sort of thing was tried before already with such services as 95th percentile bandwidth charges and the first corporate DSL services charging a set cost for a certain amount of in/out data and then charging extra when you do over. The model won't work simply because it failed back then. When it comes to Internet access people aren't so naive about the inner workings of access. To put it simply you should just pay for the size of the pipe you're accessing. The Bells are just being greedy. | |
| | Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
| funny thing is content companies probally pay ATT or Verizon, they just dont pay the ISP branch but could very well be paying the business or enterprise level branch for the fiber they use.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
| lvas
join:2001-05-17
Glen Carbon, IL
| dont like it - then build your own internet gee you guys on this site crack me up. the internet is not free and hasn’t been for a long time. you ever hear of the saying there is no free lunch? You get what you pay for, etc. well the current speeds offered now is exactly that - you get what you pay for. And guess what - you still will have those same crappy speeds when at the same time folks who want to speed more for guaranteed QOS will have better speeds.
However, You all scream for download/upload speeds like Japan/Korean have - but then when the folks who have to build such a network (and their investors) state they want to make return on their investment or they won't build it - you say hell no.
For real word examples just look at your gas station pump – your usually offered 3 grades of gasoline – you buy which ever you like. Now in this year of RECORD profits by the oil companies (yes I would argue its a utility that you need more than you do an internet line) where is the public outrage against Exxon for making 25 billion in pure profit off of your backs. They don’t have to raise the price of gas at the pump like they did – the evidence is in the 25 billion in profits they made. | |
| |
See 18 replies to this post | |
TechSponge
join:2001-05-14
Hillside, NJ | I, for One, applaud guys like Whitacre... Let em keep on spewing their Imbescilities.
Just making the case for the next round of Divestitures. It is now time to strip the Last mile away from the incumbents and turn every C.O. into a carrier hotel/interconnect NAP. | |
| | 
TelecomJunky
Premium
join:2005-12-12
Kansas City, MO
1 edit | Re: I, for One, applaud guys like Whitacre... said by TechSponge :Let em keep on spewing their Imbescilities. Just making the case for the next round of Divestitures. It is now time to strip the Last mile away from the incumbents and turn every C.O. into a carrier hotel/interconnect NAP. You live in a dream world. Money talks. Our feds have been bought lock stock and barrel. If you don't think these fees will become reality within the next year or two you are fooling yourself.
If you really want to do something about it, cancel your Bell services and go cable and voip.
Let your money talk for you, Bell sure knows how to do that.
»hotcarl.diaryland.com | |
| 
Old_Grouch
Don't just sit there silly DO something
Premium
join:2004-05-26
Greenwood, IN
clubs:
·AT&T Midwest
| Consider the source The boy comes from local phone service roots. It is his nature to wish for measured service and bill per call/minute/whatever no matter the product.
When you live to serve yourself, the term self-serving doesn't strike you as bad. They whine at the federal level to get broadband service and all they provide over it declared interstate commerce so they don't have to have local regulation or tariff. Then, the first thing they want to impose is tariff.
Consider the (background of the) source. | |
| bamabrad
join:2006-01-27
Port Orange, FL | IDEA? The net used to be for fun-but now considering WHAT & How it is used, it(the net) should be considered a UTILITY-and subject to government regulation (YECK!!) if the pipe owners get out of hand (GREEDY) | |
| | Jamuka
join:2005-06-06 | Re: IDEA? Yea right. And what happens when the government gets involved and regulates shit? Prices go up. Happens in every industry the government sticks its nose in. This is NOT the solution to little Ed's rants. | |
| | | bamabrad
join:2006-01-27
Port Orange, FL | Re: IDEA? Good point and critisism--Better idea? | |
| | |
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX | Telco regulation brought prices down, increased consumer options, and brought out better technologies. I don't see how it would be different here. | |
| | | |
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| Re: IDEA? said by SRFireside :Telco regulation brought prices down, increased consumer options, and brought out better technologies. I don't see how it would be different here. Traditional regulation isn't really very good at this. The regulated competition of the '80's and '90's did a good job on all of these points, however.
We must recall that the Telecom act of '96 got passed by Congress ONLY because the Baby Bells wanted something VERY, VERY, BADLY -- entry into long distance. Now that they have that, there is little or nothing that will convince them to allow another sweeping rewrite of the laws that isn't totally in their favor.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
| | | | |
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
| Re: IDEA? The Bells don't write the laws though. They can lobby all they want, but putting financial influence aside ultimately laws are written by congress. The point being regulation CAN work if approached the right way. The trick is getting regulation done the right way. | |
| 
JoeyDee
Premium
join:2004-07-23
Las Vegas, NV
·Cox HSI
·Comcast
| Dieing gasps... The whole telco model doesn't make sense anymore. Analog voice is going to die an ugly death and all the ex-SBC empire has left is the 'net backbone structure they inherited with the original AT&T break-up. CEO Ed is trying to figure out how to keep his company alive in it's current configuration instead of doing some investing in serious technology upgrades. He's figuring he can't sell anything at the consumer level. He's gotta get the money at the other end. That's sad.
They gotta face facts. They're providing their customers low speed connectivity for higher dollars than their competition. Fix it or croak. | |
| | DSLdewd
join:2004-06-05
Denver, CO
| Re: Dieing gasps... I think we need to give all the ILEC's some coloring books and a few crayons to keep them busy. Obviously they have too much free time as is.
This actually reminds me of the demotivational poster "meetings".
"Meetings; none of us are as stupid as all of us". | |
| | | skyweir9
join:2003-07-05
San Francisco, CA
| Lat Gasp Indeed, the last gasps of a former monopoly dying a very slow death.
Hey Ed, I've got a new idea for you echoed by others on this discussion. Try to compete in an open market with viable products and services instead of paying off legislators to maintain the status quo much like the ILECs have done for the last 50 years. It's thinking like yours that doomed the original ATT. I guess you chose the ATT trademark for your comapny for that same reason. Business as usual? | |
| | | | bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Here | Re: Lat Gasp What doomed the original AT&T actually were lobbyists. Too much money to be made if Ma Bell got broken up. People hated the idea of having cheap reliable phone service. | |
| | | |
|
|
AT&T Chief Repeats Call For Tiered Web
·
·