dslreports logo
 story category
Wired: 'You Don't Want Your ISP To Innovate'
At least not in the way they usually like to...

Sure, ISPs do a few things well. Certainly most of them are good at running networks. They know how to use Twitter. They're very good at charging consumers new and strange fees. But Wired News argues that there's one thing you don't want your ISP to do: innovate. Why? Well, usually it's because they can't, argues Wired's Ryan Singel. Singel explores ISP complaints that Title 2 reclassification will stop them from "innovating" -- though Singel looks around and doesn't quite see the innovation the industry so frequently talks about:

quote:
Where are the major players in the U.S. broadband industry in all of this innovation?

Basically, nowhere. The U.S. is 26th in the world in terms of online access. The industry’s investment in deployment of fiber optics — the transport medium of the future — is laughable (with the noted exception of Verizon, which has devoted significant money to its FiOS buildout — despite being punished by Wall Street for doing so.) Instead, they are jealous of online services that make money from ads. AT&T’s former CEO Ed Whitacre famously declared that Yahoo and Google couldn’t use his pipes for free, failing to mention that it was the company’s paying customers who were requesting pages from those sites.


Of course Singel's argument isn't entirely fair given that ISPs do innovate. That innovation just usually happens out in the field on the fly by a technician in a jam, in the network operations center during emergencies, and within an ISPs security department (assuming they're given a budget and aren't treated like second-class citizens by management). But Singel is right about the ISP executive version of innovation usually being total garbage -- especially on the content front. You simply have to compare the services offered by Google and OpenDNS to the fare your ISP generally tries to shovel in your direction.

For example we've frequently explored how ISPs are falling behind on the consumer DNS service game. Instead of offering consumers innovative new DNS services, ISPs, so hungry for a new revenue stream, decided instead to give users flaky DNS redirection ads with broken opt out mechanisms -- and then pretend it "improved the Internet experience." It does seem like ISP efforts at content innovation (who here just really loves their ISP's portal or "me too" video website?) fall short -- and almost always place cashing in far above offering consumers real value.

So while ISP executives and lobbyists may have arguments against Title 2 reclassification and other regulation, "it will stop us from innovating" pretty clearly isn't their most effective one.
view:
topics flat nest 

Camaro
Question everything
Premium Member
join:2008-04-05
Westfield, MA

Camaro

Premium Member

Burns me up

This is the one issue that pisses me off every time the greedy bastards start crying like a baby,i am glad a writer in a publication that big is finally shining the light on this giant bs argument they throw up every time,my solution say every year your company has to put back in a certain percentage in IMPROVING your network not just getting by on a thread until your network gets overloaded then invest and not some crap "network management" ,if not revoke there license.
noname10
join:2009-10-14

1 recommendation

noname10

Member

Re: Burns me up

Wired is basically a tabloid (Just like the news section of DSLR). And that article is ridiculous. It doesn't seem like the guy is just ignorant on the topic but he is just being provocative for headlines.
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

1 recommendation

Skippy25

Member

Re: Burns me up

Maybe so, but what he states is 100% correct.

They really don't innovate anything on the consumer front. What they do do is take something that appears to be making others money and try to duplicate it OR if it is something they can't do, they try to prevent it, lessen it's usefulness, or simply extort those that do profit from it.

The threats of any reclassification are hollow. They ALWAYS make these threats when they don't get their way. Look at the past year or 2 when they wanted to change the game on franchise agreements or even rolling out better services. Look at the Telecom Act of 1996 when they made the threats leading to it, actually invested more in their networks after it was implemented, and then began holding back again after the Act was torn apart, watered down, and made worthless. It is the same game with these idiots and it always will be.

I would like to see the regulatory bodies and the states grow some kahunas and flat out tell them "You have until X to serve this community or you are losing your license operate here period."
noname10
join:2009-10-14

noname10

Member

Re: Burns me up

I'm not sure why you would expect them to innovate though. Think of the ISP as likd a FedEx but even more commoditizd. Equipment manufactureres innovate in the specific areas they are experts in. Why do you think an ISP uses equipment dozens or hundreds of vendors? What is there that the ISP should be Innovating? It's just a meaningless article.
sonicmerlin
join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH

1 recommendation

sonicmerlin

Member

Re: Burns me up

said by noname10:

I'm not sure why you would expect them to innovate though. Think of the ISP as likd a FedEx but even more commoditizd. Equipment manufactureres innovate in the specific areas they are experts in. Why do you think an ISP uses equipment dozens or hundreds of vendors? What is there that the ISP should be Innovating? It's just a meaningless article.
In India a wireless carrier is offering ultra-low monthly plans to poor rural farmers. The guy owning the company went to a bunch of major players who turned down his proposals. So instead he built out his own network, innovating in the buildout of the network, by for example using solar panels and batteries to create self-sustaining cell towers.

The job of an ISP is to find a way to cut costs while maintaining high quality of service.

Google finds ways to create ultra-efficient data centers that minimize energy usage. AT&T finds ways to... drop everyone's calls in crowded areas? Really?

DavePR
join:2008-06-04
Canyon Country, CA

DavePR

Member

Re: Burns me up

"Google finds ways to create ultra-efficient data centers that minimize energy usage. "

The "Zyklon B" of keeping files on everyone. How quaint.
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

1 recommendation

Skippy25 to noname10

Member

to noname10
Because they are not just an ISP. Earthlink is an ISP, AOL was an ISP.

They are a network provider first and foremost and an ISP secondly. Which is really the issue. They are 99% dumbpipe, but are trying to be more.

If they were to concentrate on the network, improving it's performance, expanding its reach, and widening its bandwidth capacity then they would "innovate" to do such. And innovate does not necessarily mean to invent.
fiberguy2
My views are my own.
Premium Member
join:2005-05-20

fiberguy2

Premium Member

Re: Burns me up

said by Skippy25:

Because they are not just an ISP. Earthlink is an ISP, AOL was an ISP.
Correct... and what's your point?
They are a network provider first and foremost and an ISP secondly. Which is really the issue. They are 99% dumbpipe, but are trying to be more.
Says you.. and no, they aren't.. who said they are "a network provider"....? That's something you're pulling from behind, sorry to say.

And so what if they are "trying to be more"... can you produce one shred of legal paperwork that makes this wrong? They were cable companies and phone companies first.. Phone was just a dialtone and then introduced enhancements to that service like call waiting and so on and then introduced, sorry, innovated and brought out faster internet. Cable provided local antenna service first and then brought out satellite carried signals.. then they brought out phone service and THEN internet services. ... and?

Who said they were a "network first"... maybe YOU, but you're sitting here at your keyboard making things up that aren't true.

And they are most CERTAINLY NOT 99% dumb pipe. I'll argue that with you until the day I die.

What YOU are trying to imply is that they should abandon their current models, get out of the way, and let SOMEONE ELSE have at their business... don't deny that. YOU yourself are sitting here taking away their sovereign rights so that OTHERS can be the ones that are in the business, you know, since they're just 99% dumb pipes, right? - good luck with that one. Sorry, but congress doesn't have the authority to take a business away from a business.
If they were to concentrate on the network, improving it's performance, expanding its reach, and widening its bandwidth capacity then they would "innovate" to do such. And innovate does not necessarily mean to invent.
I think you're finally seeing the point. Innovation, for the most part, is NOT at the hands of the cable and phone companies... rather, it's at the hands of the technology developers. I still don't get why so many people come here daily and make that mistake. Comcast and TWC doesn't make the line gear, they simply purchase it from vendors. So, not really up to them to innovate unless you want Cox branded cable strung up on the poles, or Time Warner Cable brand modems.

Concentrating on their networks is not innovation.. that's investment. And, unless you're willing to subsidize any network expansion into an sparse area like phone has to, well, be ready for a tax of about $5.00 a month like what phone is currently getting. EVEN if they are to return to flat out regulation, which you really don't want, all the operator has to do is show on paper where their costs are going up and their rate increase will be granted. You see, you forget that in regulation (that so many love) there are provisions on HOW price increases are allowed to happen.. the government isn't going to write an industry into operating into the black. The regulation includes a mechanism that allows for rate increases when they can be substantiated. Like the cable act in the 90's, most people's rates went UP BECAUSE the regulation, when ran against their current rate structure, & P&L, pretty much handed them all a raise.

I think what people here believe to be "innovation" is more like 'we want more for less, we want it our way, not theirs, and my way is the right way... so give it to me government".. and I say that because it's chanted here almost daily.

Camaro
Question everything
Premium Member
join:2008-04-05
Westfield, MA

Camaro

Premium Member

Re: Burns me up

I completely agree with your argument on "innovation" part but you state that it is dependent on the vendors for new technology and that is where i disagree the tech and support equipment is there and will always be there they won't invest in new equipment because it hits there bonus and what not at the end of the year when they go before the bean counters and say look at how much money we saved you.
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

Skippy25 to fiberguy2

Member

to fiberguy2
You are making the points one would expect to come from you.

99% dumbpipe you question. How about the fact they do not provide a single service other than the network itself that can't be obtained from another ISP only company (if that were an option).

Surf the web, Only requires DNS for convenience
Email
News Groups
Video
Online Games
VIOP
Bittorent
VPN

I can go on and on and on. NOTHING they provide you internet related is restricted to their network (minus the ridiculous exclusive agreements a la ESPN360). Therefore, their network is nothing but a dumb pipe. Do you really want to argue against that? If so, show me ANYTHING that can't be obtained because it would require their network for technical reasons, not profit reasons but purely technical reasons.

When I speak of innovation I speak of the network because that is all they are, whether you want to accept that or not. Can they innovate in DNS, VOIP, or other services that go on top of their network? They could, but the general public will do that, which again brings back my original point in that they don't do anything in the innovation field. They ride the backs of others, which I am not complaining about. Just don't come here claiming they innovate.

Innovation does not mean invent as I pointed out, innovation is just as much as moving to the latest and greatest technologies for these companies. Verizon is innovating. Some cable companies are innovating. AT&T, needs to whither up and go away along with the other companies dragging their feet and not progressing as they are perfectly capable of doing. It is one thing to not move forward because you simply can't. It is another to not move forward because you don't have to (lack of competition and accountability to consumers) and that is the problem with a vast majority of these network providers.
fiberguy2
My views are my own.
Premium Member
join:2005-05-20

2 edits

fiberguy2

Premium Member

Re: Burns me up

In short.. YOU are trying to totally blow about what the cable and phone companies are today and make this claim that THEY are the dumb pipe. It's not true.

Do you really want to continue to mis-apply the term "dump pipe" in this situation? Are you TOTALLY wanting to remove the head ends and central offices out of the picture at the same time?

They're not dumb pipes.. they're a MANAGED NETWORK .. its the provider that manages and repackages and allocates their frequency as to how they will make all those neat little things work down one single piece of cable.

I think more what you're trying to say is that there is the delivery network and that there are services thrown down those pipes, which is obvious.. but to call it a dumb pipe, you'd have to have the PIPE arranged for 'those others' to tap in and send their stuff themselves.

While you're trying to make 'some' point... you're also trying to redefine and reinvent something to fit your desired definition.

dude.. it's not a dumb pipe..

They are "not just a network"... COMCAST, TWX, COX, et all, built a delivery system in which to throw THEIR content down to their customers.. that's not a dumb pipe as you're trying to say.

You still need to take a strong word at innovation and stop applying it here.

It's a broad term, the author of that horribly written article wrote it for some attention and to spark these various debates.. and in the end, no one gets is right anyway.

Innovation can easily be terms as "a new way to do something that hasn't been done before"... well, SDV, is a form of innovation as it allows more channels to be delivered over the same amount of available spectrum. Bonding 4 channels together to increase HSI speeds on DOCSIS3.0 is considered innovation.. some can even say having 2 hour time frame appointments is innovating the old school 4 hour and all day appointment calendar.

So what exactly does this bafoon want out of innovation?

.. the one thing I believe implied is for basically all the owners of these networks to just operate them and let everyone else throw their crap down them Utopia style... which woked, um, rather well.

The ONLY thing that really is in play here is HSI services.. the rest is really not up to 'others' to decide.

What I also see and hear are about 20million techs out there all crying innovation and yet none really are doing more than simply crying for it.

In your last paragraph, you said Verizon was innovating.. they had been innovating for, um, 10 years of sitting on their asses. Fiber rollouts should have happened a long time ago but they sat on their free money. AT&T needs to wither.. why? They installed a late/great technology and it's making many customers happy. I think you're idea of innovation, when you boil it all down is "run fiber to the home".. but you also assume that copper is dead, and it's not... that's becuase people like cablelabs are busy innovating and working on the next level of DOCSIS and others are out there trying to work on making what's already faster than what we need for the time, even faster.

Sounds like a lot of innovating going on to me.
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

1 edit

Skippy25

Member

Re: Burns me up

I didn't even read past your argument with me about a dumbpipe because you are so far off base with that I could only conclude the rest of your diatribe is the same and thus won't waste my time.

It is you that is mucking up what I am saying. If you really want to start pulling management, nodes, switches, packets, electricity, and everything else into the argument you really are spinning in circles because all those things are present in a network regardless of what it's use is for. Thus the build out and management has no relevance to this conversation of them being dumbpipes.

I can also only conclude you went on that tangent because you are not able to man up to the challenge. So now again I ask, give me one example of a service/feature/content (absent of exclusiveness) that is provided by any one single "network provider" anywhere in this country, or the world for that matter, that 100% requires their network and can't be reproduced if they did nothing more than provide me an IP address.

Simply put....
If I get a valid IP address on their wired network, what "feature" of the internet can I NOT use?

If get an IP address on my phone, what feature can I NOT use?

(excluding explicitly blocked features as they could be used if not locked down)

Being I already know the answer to my above questions I will simply state these "providers" really are nothing but extremely expensive DHCP (i.e. IP address) service providers. Beyond that one simple little service, they do nothing to enhance the internet whether it is on 14.4 modems or a 1gbps fiber link. NOT A SINGLE THING!!!! That my friend brings us to them being a dumbpipe.

I look forward to your attempt to prove me wrong on any level of the above.
fiberguy2
My views are my own.
Premium Member
join:2005-05-20

fiberguy2 to Skippy25

Premium Member

to Skippy25
What do you want.. innovation? or do you want dumb pipes? ...you can't be on both sides of this argument.

And what is "innovation" anyway.. at least from people around here?

The ISPs want to make it as basic as they can for the masses. They're not here for the techies.

If people want DNS stuff, they can go seek it - the AVERAGE consumer isn't going to want to seek DNS anything. They just want to turn it on and send an email, watch YouTube and post endless ridiculous status updates on the Twitter and Facebook, oh, and sell their used crap from the basement on ebay.

So what else? ... people here, including Karl who just got done saying "get out of the way with your hulu failures and portals" etc.. what else is there to innovate with? ...speeds? At least some of the major ISPs are doing that..

Yea... the guy that wrote this article really is just out to get people to talk.. and really in the end, there really isn't anything worth reading from his part.

So... in your statement, what exactly do you want these ISPs to "serve you" with by "X" date anyway? ... seems most people here want the ISP to get out of their way in the first place.

If you ask me, however, the only ones not really innovating much on anything are the smaller telephone companies. One can't argue that U-verse isn't an "innovation".. one can't say Verizon isn't "innovating"... same with any cable company offering faster speeds.

However, I really think that people are putting too much into the term "innovation"... it's not the job of the ISP do to that.. the proper term in mind would be "upgrading and updating" their systems. The fact that Title 2 and Innovation are being used together is a bit off the wall.

The one thing you can't do, really, to the phone companies is force them to upgrade anything. Cable, however, you can.. and last I checked, in the terms of upgrades in speeds, cable on average has far out paced phone in that category unarguably.
33358088 (banned)
join:2008-09-23

33358088 (banned)

Member

Nice article

seem Tony Clement should be watching the news and seeing how his idea to open markets for isps here in canada is nothing more then allowing them to scam us too
Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium Member
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ

Kearnstd

Premium Member

FiOS v Wallstreet

well one thing to note is stockholders are ruining our infrastructure because radical upgrades like FTTH do not have a quarterly return. FTTH is strictly for the extreme minority on investors who have a greater than one quarter vision range. its a long term deal that you have to be able to see out several years.

now if only investors could see past the next quarterly statement all our corporations would in fact do better.
noname10
join:2009-10-14

noname10

Member

Re: FiOS v Wallstreet

said by Kearnstd:

well one thing to note is stockholders are ruining our infrastructure because radical upgrades like FTTH do not have a quarterly return. FTTH is strictly for the extreme minority on investors who have a greater than one quarter vision range. its a long term deal that you have to be able to see out several years.

now if only investors could see past the next quarterly statement all our corporations would in fact do better.
Stockholders built the infrastructure you use. Without them the infrastructure you claim is "ours" wouldn't exist.

Orly
@gci.net

Orly

Anon

Re: FiOS v Wallstreet

Really? I was under the impression that US taxpayers funded the majority of copper landline deployment over the past 100 years. Today's ILEC like AT&T, Verizon, and others didn't front those costs, they inherited the infrastructure and were able to generate new streams of revenue from it with xDSL technologies. Sure, some of these ILEC might have had expenditures laying FTTN, extra DSLAM, and so on, but this is a pittance compared to the cost taxpayers assumed by laying copper to every single address in America.
WhatNow
Premium Member
join:2009-05-06
Charlotte, NC

WhatNow

Premium Member

Re: FiOS v Wallstreet

When did taxpayers pay my monthly phone bill. Long distance charges were what built Ma Bell. If you lived in an area that was non bell what innovation do you see. You were lucky to have service after a summer shower. When MCI broke up the Long Distance charges the outside plant upgrades stopped. When the plant was deregulated other companies did not come in built plant and compete they just leased it from the phone company at below cost. Their customers paid wholesale and were treated like VIP paying customers. When the startup money ran out they went belly up and all most of the resellers were doing was sales and billing.
The phone company is required to serve everyone in their territory but everybody else can pick and chose. The last mile costs do not work like stores and selling cars.

If you want FTTH for everybody then someone is going to have to pay for it. Scores of Phone customers are going wireless and to the cable companies but the in ground costs stay the same except for install charges but there is less money for innovation. You keep cutting the pie into thinner pieces you soon get nothing.
The phone companies did roll out cable TV but now you guys want them to dump the content and just be a dumb pipe.
elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA

elray to Orly

Member

to Orly
said by Orly :

Really? I was under the impression that US taxpayers funded the majority of copper landline deployment over the past 100 years. Today's ILEC like AT&T, Verizon, and others didn't front those costs, they inherited the infrastructure and were able to generate new streams of revenue from it with xDSL technologies. Sure, some of these ILEC might have had expenditures laying FTTN, extra DSLAM, and so on, but this is a pittance compared to the cost taxpayers assumed by laying copper to every single address in America.
Could you cite a real source for your assertion? (Good luck!)

No, the taxpayers didn't fund the copper plant. The ratepayers did, and the financing / capital came from bond buyers and shareholders.

The only part the taxpayers played, through governance, was granting AT&T a large monopoly, in order to guarantee that all phone lines could call with each other, rather than having incompatible technologies from hundreds of phone companies unable to interconnect. In exchange for regulation, AT&T and the non-Bell LECs were granted guaranteed rates of return.

They didn't "inherit" the copper plant. It was always theirs.
noname10
join:2009-10-14

noname10 to Orly

Member

to Orly
said by Orly :

Really? I was under the impression that US taxpayers funded the majority of copper landline deployment over the past 100 years. Today's ILEC like AT&T, Verizon, and others didn't front those costs, they inherited the infrastructure and were able to generate new streams of revenue from it with xDSL technologies. Sure, some of these ILEC might have had expenditures laying FTTN, extra DSLAM, and so on, but this is a pittance compared to the cost taxpayers assumed by laying copper to every single address in America.
Did you just make this up as you typed it? It's a COMPLETE load of BS.
fiberguy2
My views are my own.
Premium Member
join:2005-05-20

fiberguy2 to Orly

Premium Member

to Orly
said by Orly :

Really? I was under the impression that US taxpayers funded the majority of copper landline deployment over the past 100 years. Today's ILEC like AT&T, Verizon, and others didn't front those costs, they inherited the infrastructure and were able to generate new streams of revenue from it with xDSL technologies. Sure, some of these ILEC might have had expenditures laying FTTN, extra DSLAM, and so on, but this is a pittance compared to the cost taxpayers assumed by laying copper to every single address in America.
You're very confused... an not sure where you're getting your information from, but its inaccurate.

Nothing was "inherited".. rather, purchased. Which telephone company died and left it to the next? When was the last time you saw "Uncle Sam communication" trucks out installing copper? And when did DSL become the revenue stream for phone companies?

The "tax payers" didn't build the phone lines.. the phone companies did.

just.. wow..
tmc8080
join:2004-04-24
Brooklyn, NY

tmc8080 to Kearnstd

Member

to Kearnstd
said by Kearnstd:

well one thing to note is stockholders are ruining our infrastructure because radical upgrades like FTTH do not have a quarterly return. FTTH is strictly for the extreme minority on investors who have a greater than one quarter vision range. its a long term deal that you have to be able to see out several years.

now if only investors could see past the next quarterly statement all our corporations would in fact do better.
Market conditions and historical realities about the telecom / cablecom duopolies proved that the FIOS product was mismanaged for several years. Long term contracts, installation fees, taxes, surcharges, POTS legacy fees, in addition to inflationary pressures of time put Verizon exactly where they are today.. stuck in a moderate diappointment with the FIOS subscription rates. Some of that seems to be on its way to being remedied.

Many *SMART* consumers aren't friggen stupid enough to fall for a $360 Early Termination fee and stuck in a 2 YEAR contract-- especially when the nearest competitor (duopolist) isnt' doing the same. By nearest competitor, we generally mean the heavies such as Comcast, Time Warner, Cablevision (maybe one or two more which are less significant). Verizon should have offered a *** COM PET IT TIVE *** DIGITAL VOICE product that is not heavily taxes nearly 5 years ago. That's primarily why they squandered so much time & good faith of the consumers who initially bent over & paid the higher than cable company rates just to get FIOS internet. Now that the economy isn't doing as well, consumers for both duopolists will be harder to come by and the rates they CAN AFFORD aren't as high as both would like now. Therefore a race to the bottom line price is inevitable, as much as Verizon marketing departments would like to hint that rates will keep going up, up, up... so HURRY and lock in at our current low rates in a large contract with a HIGH ETF. The shareholders and the marketing departments will be out of a job or diappointed with the old ways of doing business. Those were on life support when the last of the MEGA telcom mergers closed.
stewie3128
join:2008-11-20

stewie3128

Member

They *could* innovate...

ISPs/telcos/cablecos should be capable of innovating, but in their present form they aren't. These companies are an object lesson in what happens when the accountants start running the business: their objective becomes a short-sighted maximization of profit and minimization of customer service, and if the customer gets raped in the process, so be it.

Ideally, the bean counters shouldn't even be in the same building as the people who really should be running a company like an ISP: technicians and executives who maintain focus on a mission of customer satisfaction. *That* is the only sustainable way of running a company in the long run.

Look at AT&T's CEO's bio: »www.att.com/gen/investor ··· pid=7824

What are his degrees in? Accounting, and accounting. Not electrical engineering, computer science, or even anything remotely scientific. Is he or anyone like him at all interested in technological innovation? No - quite the opposite. Things we as customers would see as "innovation" he would see as an "expense" and not an "investment." His objective is to impede innovation, because change costs money. Much better to make an investment in lobbyists.

Or, you could grow your company on the quality of its product and its continual customer satisfaction. If your mission is to "attract and retain customers" instead of "make money" then the money will come - sustainably and over the long term - and it will grow out of a solid bed of satisfied and dedicated customers... not entrapped peasants. You might not make as much money next quarter, but you'll make more money over the next 20 years.

I can understand an accountant running a bank or a credit card company, but not AT&T.
fiberguy2
My views are my own.
Premium Member
join:2005-05-20

1 edit

fiberguy2

Premium Member

Re: They *could* innovate...

"Ideally, the bean counters shouldn't even be in the same building as the people who really should be running a company like an ISP: technicians and executives who maintain focus on a mission of customer satisfaction. *That* is the only sustainable way of running a company in the long run."
Ummmmmmmmmm... really? .. fore real?

You do realize that business, um, oh geez... You REALLY believe that a company should operate with no "bean counters"... in the "same building"...? Do you have much of an idea on how a business even operates?

Dude, there has to be "money" and it can't be always running in the negative which is why there are "bean counters" involved in ANY operation. It's called a "budget".. and ALL business has to run on a budget. Budgets don't come from CEO's or of all people TECHIES... If an ISP was operated by techies alone, assuming they could even on their own get one off the ground, it would be bankrupt in short order. Give a techie free reign with out any fiscal control and he'd outspend himself..

Techies do what techies do.. they build networks, electronics, etc. Bean Counters do what they do.. they tell the techies when they can and can't spend money.. CEO's do what they do.. they take the information from the bean counters and allow the money to be allocated to the techies to do their job.

Sorry to tell you, but bean counters don't run AT&T.. try again.

Even if you put a techie at the top of AT&T, they're still going to rely on the bean counter. Even if you removed the CEO, you're still going to have to have someone that's doing the job of the CEO.

And while you make the same incorrect assumption in your post about ATT and who the CEO is, I'm sorry to tell you, but not even the President of the United States knows everything about everything... that's why they always have VERY large teams of advisers.

I'm sorry, but the notion of "if you build it, they will come" as you were basically saying, has been proven false many times over. Utopia was just such a thing.. where is it now? If you build it they will come hold as much water as "the customer is always right".. they're just touchy feel good sentiments that when you add $2.50 with them they'll get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

Business is out there to make money.. they do so by everything else they do. But make no mistake, the FIRST line of order for a business is to MAKE MONEY.. everything else they do is just part of the equation.



By the way.. just how much customer service does a customer need in order NOT to be raped? It has been often argued for a long time that when a customer calls AT&T support and they're hooked up to a router, by not helping the customer is "poor customer service"... when in fact, that's no in their scope. AT&T's job is to provide service to the home, that's it. If the service is working, that's the end of their job and its up to the customer to find the right person to get "customer service" from.

Is the customer not getting billing related information? Appointments set up? Payments accepted? I mean.. what are they lacking? ... their bottoms wiped? My point is that there is an expectation of service and then there are the services they're supposed to get in reality. Business isn't the government where you have an inherit amount of service you expect. Business attracts customers by providing the service to retain their customers. In fact, if you ask me and many people, I think government gives LESS service to the people in which they TAKE money from than what any business people here bitch about daily do. (think about that one)