SBC: We Own The Internet, So Google Should Pay Up

from the uh-oh.--trouble-coming. dept

Mon, Oct 31st 2005 3:57am — Mike Masnick

It's become pretty clear that Kevin Martin's FCC has no problem considering "competition" in the broadband space to mean incumbent telcos vs. incumbent cable companies. So far, the FCC has done just about everything possible to make it much harder for any third parties to get into the game. So is it really any surprise to hear the CEO of SBC, Ed Whitacre, in an interview suggest that it's only a matter of time before they start going after any of the services that make the internet useful to try to make them pay up to remain reachable? When asked about companies like Google, Yahoo and Vonage, he says: "Now what they would like to do is use my pipes free, but I ain't going to let them do that because we have spent this capital and we have to have a return on it. So there's going to have to be some mechanism for these people who use these pipes to pay for the portion they're using. Why should they be allowed to use my pipes? The Internet can't be free in that sense, because we and the cable companies have made an investment and for a Google or Yahoo! or Vonage or anybody to expect to use these pipes [for] free is nuts!" In other words, he's talking about going well beyond blocking some ports like BellSouth, to actually blocking out websites and services unless they first pay SBC a fee. It certainly has the feel of extortion: pay up or no one on our network will be able to reach your website. If you thought that mess Level 3 and Cogent was problematic, just wait until you can't access Google from SBC, because Google fails to pay up SBC's "connection" fees. What Whitacre seems to be forgetting is that it's all of these services and the ability to connect that makes the internet access worthwhile. Now who was just saying that network neutrality wasn't needed? Notice that the only reason this is possible now is because there's less competition in the broadband space, not more. If there were real competition, SBC would never even dare to suggest that they might cut off a Google, Yahoo or Vonage.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

91 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Juhani, 31 Oct 2005 @ 3:57am

So everybody assumes that the huge bandwidth Google uses for both incoming and outcoming traffic is free for them?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Scott, 31 Oct 2005 @ 4:25am

They do pay
Hasn't Ed heard of bandwidth & access charges?

Of course Google and the like are paying telecoms for use of their network. All those OC3's at their data centers are just that. Perhaps he should take a look at their books to see just how much revenue he's making from it.

In the mean time, perhaps the FCC should sit-up and take notice of the mess they created. They allowed all this consolidation to the point where Ed actually thinks he CAN charge Google more for it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
greg jackson, 31 Oct 2005 @ 4:41am

SBC dangerous nonsense - users pay!
I'm assuming SBC charge their users for access to the net? In which case - their users pay; the users pay so they can access google and everything else on the internet.

Perhaps SBC could say to their customers - here's a lower price service; but you can only access sites which have paid us... Not likely to go down well...

Anything else is absolute sophistry.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
MadJo (profile), 31 Oct 2005 @ 4:51am

Websites owners need to pay the bandwidth use of t
So if an SBC-customer visits my page, not only do they use up the limited amount of bandwidth available to my site, but I also need to pay the head-honcho of SBC? (Because I apparently use his pipe (whatever that may mean) to offer my page)

Wow, isn't he clever. This goes on my "most clever idea" wall... :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chuck, 31 Oct 2005 @ 5:03am

WTF!?
I want to know how they could legally do that. In my opinion SBC would lose a LOT of customers. Google is the #1 search engine and if they have to pay ISPs then it will just load google with more ads and garbage for them to pay for it.

I'm proud to say that I am NOT an SBC customer.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Joel N., 31 Oct 2005 @ 5:19am

SBC
I am an SBC customer. I pay 20 bucks a month for a 3MB DSL Line, as well as for Satellite, long distance, and local phone. I don't WANT local phone or long distance, but they FORCE me to have it, in order to get DSL and discounts on Satellite. They are making money from me on services I don't use. I know of people that are in the same boat. "Buy our local service, or no DSL." Give me a break, they have plenty of revenue. I'd switch companies in a heartbeat IF they blocked google, but guess what?!? They have a monopoly in my part of the city, I have no other choice, other than cable, which is not an option for me. (Too expensive) How frustrating...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
dana, 31 Oct 2005 @ 5:19am

Re: WTF!?
I knew there was a reason I told SBC to kiss my watoosee 8 months ago. dont you just hate when stupid people say and do stupid s**t (POO)yes mr ed (LOL) I am telling you and world that in my opinion you are as smart as paint in other words dumb as a box rocks. have a nice day
[ link to this | view in thread ]
googler, 31 Oct 2005 @ 5:24am

satel lite is heavy
ok go ahead and play this out. first a few internet phone companies instead of charging 30 a month begin to charge 20 if you dont get voip but 40 if you want it. The voip squeeze!!
Then the pioneers ,the fon boys decide to charge the ad guys like google for the free ride theyre getting. Then you know what? The users just go satellite like the radio did with serius radio. right over not just the fcc but over those antenna guys who aid radio was getting a free ride on them. cell fons are already going net connected with skype. Why not have the same with home desktop ? providers sell a lil box that gets u online(with a specific provider only or a choice)via satellite with your home computer using a dish and then sbc can take its pipes and melt them...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Danno, 31 Oct 2005 @ 5:27am

No Subject Given
I think SBC should take a shot at blocking its users from getting to Google.

It'll be fucking hilarious.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Just one guy, 31 Oct 2005 @ 5:38am

This is just crazy!
I can't believe this guy is the CEO of a major technological organization! I could make a better CEO than him.

Hell, my cat could be better. Even my cat's fleas could be better than this guy!

(No, not them: my cat has no fleas...)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
mavi, 31 Oct 2005 @ 5:47am

Re: satel lite is heavy
ok go ahead and play this out. first a few internet phone companies instead of charging 30 a month begin to charge 20 if you dont get voip but 40 if you want it. The voip squeeze!!
Then the pioneers ,the fon boys decide to charge the ad guys like google for the free ride theyre getting. Then you know what? The users just go satellite like the radio did with serius radio. right over not just the fcc but over those antenna guys who Said radio was getting a free ride on them. cell fons are already going net connected with skype. Why not have the same with home desktop ? providers sell a lil box that gets u online(with a specific provider only or a choice)via satellite with your home computer using a dish and then sbc can take its pipes and melt them...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2005 @ 5:48am

No Subject Given
The troll under the bridge has a new name and it's Ed!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2005 @ 5:49am

No Subject Given
As a SBC-DSL customer I find this ludicrous, I am paying them for the connection to the internet, nothing else, I want nothing else from them. If they would decide to block sites for ANY reason, let alone one like this, not only would I drop my contract, I would make whatever calls are necessary to start a class action lawsuit against them for breaking the contract and false advertising. They claim to be an ISP, but they cannot be an ISP unless they provide the ENTIRE Internet.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ChronoFish, 31 Oct 2005 @ 5:51am

SBC: The New Evil
(I've posted a responce on my blog: blog.chronofish.com)

Just in time for Halloween:

From Business Week: At SBC, It's All About "Scale and Scope"
How concerned are you about Internet upstarts like Google (GOOG ), MSN, Vonage, and others? How do you think they're going to get to customers? Through a broadband pipe. Cable companies have them. We have them. Now what they would like to do is use my pipes free, but I ain't going to let them do that because we have spent this capital and we have to have a return on it. So there's going to have to be some mechanism for these people who use these pipes to pay for the portion they're using. Why should they be allowed to use my pipes? The Internet can't be free in that sense, because we and the cable companies have made an investment and for a Google or Yahoo! (YHOO ) or Vonage or anybody to expect to use these pipes [for] free is nuts!

What Mr. Whitacre doesn't realize is that the "pipes" are what his already paying customers are using to get to sites like Google. Charging Google for access to customers makes as much sense as United Airlines charging Florida for tourist. Mr. Whitacre has to answer is this: If I can't get to Google through SBC, but I can through his rival - why in the world would I use SBC? And if a rival doesn't exist (aka Monopoly) then charging on "both ends" is definate grounds for government intervention. This has large implications: see my previous post (Copy Cat Yourself to Democracy as once again the large corporations can dictate what you see and who can see you. If SBC can act like China because of financial reasons - then what is to stop them from acting like China for political reasons? I encourage you to keep an I on this - I know I will be.

[ link to this | view in thread ]
Brian Bartlett, 31 Oct 2005 @ 5:54am

Mystified
I'm totally mystified by this idea. As an economist, I have to wonder where the heck this idiot went to business school and exactly what courses in economics, if any, he took. His grades might be useful although I doubt it given the way I've seen grading in academia being conducted. For some reason the CEO of SBC feels he has a monoposony which couldn't be further from the truth. While SBC may have a monopoly in some markets, and an oligopoly in almost every market, this is not the same thing and conflating the two is a fundamental mistake.
As an engineer (I'm both among other things), I have problems understanding how it would work. This would involve some serious reprogramming of their network to accomplish and I can picture the game of one-upmanship that might occur should Google, or any other major player, not play nice with them. China is having a hard enough time with this, does SBC think they can do better?
It should prove interesting and I wouldn't mind seeing SBC blown out of the internet waters in the least. The walled web garden approach didn't work out so well for AOL, I firmly believe it will not here either.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sid Emory, 31 Oct 2005 @ 5:54am

Excuse Me
I have to say it, and I don't say it often, but this guy is an idiot. It's just another fat cat company looking for more and more revenue without thinking about their customer. Unfortanetly there is nothing that the consumer can do. Boycott isn't an option since they have every politician that they can find in their pocket. SBC has gone after so many local and state governments to further their interests that its ridiculous and their consciences are eased because to them "it's just business". They take what should be a great opportunity for everyone - Communication - and make it a great opportunity for themselves and if anyone else can benefit by taking their scraps then thats ok too and it helps ease their consciences a little more. The lines are so blurred tha there isn't even a line anymore. The sad fact is they don't have a clue and they don't even know it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jim, 31 Oct 2005 @ 5:55am

Pitty
In the end, it will all come back on the consumers with price hikes for sure!
I am already considering jumping ship to Cable and hoping they do not do the same.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Damon, 31 Oct 2005 @ 6:18am

SBC
The day SBC pulls this is the day I switch to a different service..
[ link to this | view in thread ]
seth goldberg, 31 Oct 2005 @ 6:21am

skip the pipes
Im a communications engineer and the the future for internet began already.just get internet via satellite . cell phones and desktops will soon connect via satellite by-passing cables pipes lines etc. mobility not just physical mobility without cables but financial mobility too, choosing to jump to satellits and to which satellite.You think google doesnt have the momney to get into being internet providers via satellite? Its the only part where they dont yet exist,providing net.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
otherWayArround, 31 Oct 2005 @ 6:24am

The other way arround
Just as cable TV pay for programms (content), SBC should pay google for the service they provide to SBC's paying customers
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2005 @ 6:29am

riiiiiight
I think he has been drinking to much of Redmond coolaid with this IPTV and all. come on ed get back down to what brought to where you are.
Be a good communications company provide kick-ass pipes at a kick-ass rate and people will come and your stock will go up.
Stop listening to Microsoft - they don't really care about you. They only care about themselves. Pretty you will be MS-SBC. Get out of the internet software business. It is not where you company should be.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Brian, 31 Oct 2005 @ 6:30am

SBC
Shouldn't someone tell the CEO of SBC that people are paying to use his PIPES....the customers!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Denis, 31 Oct 2005 @ 6:33am

No Subject Given
This is crap. ANYONE who has access to the net pays for a) Access and b) Bandwidth.
In order for Google to be on the net they need to buy some connections and pay the monthly charge or whatever to cover the bandwidth costs.

On the other end, customers pay for their access to the net and have some bandwidth provided to them as part of their subscription.

What is SBC trying to do? Saying that any bits that cross their pipe on the way to Google should be billed to Google? Aren't there agreements that deal with this?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
jszpila, 31 Oct 2005 @ 6:39am

connection vs. content
hey i don't know about you guys but i know that i'm paying solely for the joy of having a connection. who needs content, anyway?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
JRB, 31 Oct 2005 @ 6:49am

What If...
Let us review the technological trend. Cable companies told the phone companies, "We're offering phone service through our cable lines!" The phone companies responded, "We will offer cable and internet service through our fiber-optic lines!"
Mr. Ed says, "We are going to charge Google for access!" What if Google decides to buy dark fiber and then become a competitor to SBC and not just a customer? Just a thought.
Oh, by the way, Google is already buying up dark fiber lines in the hopes of providing internet access. Mr. Ed is SBC, a Stupid Beleagured CEO.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
M. Spankie, 31 Oct 2005 @ 6:52am

Can't wait for free Wi-fi everywhere...
Many cities are working on providing free wi-fi to everyone. G is working on the same thing. There will be a day (very soon) when the "pipes" from SBC will be no longer needed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bob, 31 Oct 2005 @ 6:57am

"SBC" Bite me, and everyone else....
Go ahead Mr. Whitacre, I dare you to start charging Google, and the likes... They are already offering free wireless Internet access in some states... Maybe they will further expand on that... Put that in your bandwidth pipe, and smoke it... Then you will be just like the the "$200 Tickle Me Elmo" schmo's on Christmas eve... Stuck with all of your fancy equipment, just generating heat... Have a nice day... tool...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
IT_Project_Boy, 31 Oct 2005 @ 7:10am

Re: SBC: The New Evil
With the upcoming convergence of AT&T and SBC via SBC's aquisition, the FCC has made it clear that they are willing to brush hog anyone who stands in the way. When will we see the FCCactually perform its duties? Mr. Whitacre has obviously gone insane and as such I agree that they should try like Mr. Gore did, to take credit for the Internet and its accessibility. Which end of the stick did his momma club him with, I wonder?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DMShaykz, 31 Oct 2005 @ 7:10am

Re: They do pay
No kidding! This is a true example of how executives & gov't officials have NO CLUE how things work - they just want to rule everything.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Troy, 31 Oct 2005 @ 7:12am

Re: SBC dangerous nonsense - users pay!
I ama proud SBC user and it only costs me 14.99 a month! I called them and they said there would be no way they would block sites to their paying customers. They don't even block ports for their customers, meaning you can run a cheap web server using their dsl.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2005 @ 7:12am

Re: SBC dangerous nonsense - users pay!
And if they cut their users off from Google, they'll notice their revenues and user base dropping like a brick
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nona, 31 Oct 2005 @ 7:25am

Buy ATT stock and fire him
Folks,
Its asshats like this CEO that are the problem today.
My suggestion, buy up some shares, and proxy him out. This is clearly a "tool" for greed and not progress.
(crack pipes...he is referring to)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
tehxr, 31 Oct 2005 @ 7:49am

So they plan to bill every webmaster for traffic?
What I'm afraid of as a website owner/admin of a number of small gaming communities:

If they can get away with billing Google for traffic, will that set a precedent to pave the way for them to charge ME for traffic to my sites? Charge you for hits to your blog? Charge my neighbor for his family website when his mother-in-law perpetuates a vertiable DoS attack on it while scavenging pictures of the grandkids?

What kind of redneck moron is Mr Pipes Whitacre?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Serenity, 31 Oct 2005 @ 7:50am

SBC as an Entity
Well, I am very very amused by this:
SBC is literally the sinlge worst ISP on the planet... I mean hell even Covad has better service than them, and not to mention the fact that they can not even provide what they say they offer. For example we ordered a DSL line into my company from SBC because we wanted a CRAP Connection: so we could test apps against the worst condition DSL Lines to make sure it would work. We pay them 50$ a month like a normal customer and in return we get 256Down/64K Up - This is not a DSL Light Connection it is supposed to be 1.5/256.... and we are well within the last mile, and infact they are riding an OC12 SONET into the building straight from the DSLAM.

So, For this overblown pompus nitwit to think HE of anyone can charge an actual SERVICE PROVIDER for something just speaks volumes about idiots running the corporate world.. Sounds to me like his stock is falling because everyone knows that his company sucks about as bad as his ethics.

In Fact I think people should boycott good Ol SBC and go with cable.. It might not be perfect but it is free (at the moment) of idiots tampering with it.

It really is sad that I do not own the patent rights on fiber, then I could sue him for using my glass concoction per phone call....

Anyhow: Lemme Append:

The Views in this particular reply are from me, and me alone: They have not been influenced in anyway by others reading, writing or responding to this reply. This is a personal opinion of a single person an is in no way affiliated with any corporation or additional body; political, philisophical or religious.

Ed, If you are reading... It's not slander old boy, when its true... P.S. You do know the constitution...Right.. Or did you skip that right along with the ethics class.

In Case anyone missed that, I consider this to be un-ethical...

Serenity
[ link to this | view in thread ]
bob, 31 Oct 2005 @ 8:05am

No Subject Given
then maybe the people can charge sbc for the land grant they got to install those cables and lines on and in
if google has to pay sbc then sbc has to pay me
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Serenity, 31 Oct 2005 @ 8:06am

Append: Stock
HAHA, His stock really is falling..... just checked my GOOGLE TICKER: FREE....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ben McNelly, 31 Oct 2005 @ 8:19am

SBC is scared....
Here's the point... SBC is scared as heck that VOIP and broadband internet are going to kill them. They are already suffering from people who instead using a home phone just use a cell phone. (And with low cost satellite like DISH Network, who need�s cable either? )
So, in order to get as many people as possible on their "services" they basically give away internet (DSL) so they can get you on extra phone charges, fees, long distance and a contract with severe cancellation penalties. They are also going to pull all punches bureaucratically that they can as far as lobbying this way and that to ensure people still NEED their "Pipes"...
- Fact is, they have good reason to fear anyone who openly promotes the expansion of the internet (like google) without the restraints of major corporations who don�t just want a piece of the pie, but want have their cake and eat it too (not sure why I am using dessert analogies)...
Not that google is O'so inoccent itself...
This also brings up the argument that �google� is the anti-christ. Think about it, socially active, globally respected, has the ability to bring the world together and ultimately promise world peace, but is also probably gathering data on everyone of us through our searches, their toolbar, gmail, and basically re-inventing the way the internet works... Someday we will be able to have a chip installed that connects us wirelessly to the internet so we can shop and pay with wave of a hand!
(I just thought I would throw that in there so SBC doesent read this and see me as a viable threat and have me illiminated, by canadian mercinaries...)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Seth Brundle, 31 Oct 2005 @ 8:20am

By all means!!!
OMG I would love to see SBC give an ultimatum to Google and Yahoo! (um, which would be weird since Yahoo! cobrands their DSL) - and then watch Google turn around immediately, and flip the bird directly in their face.
You cant offer a home internet service which doesnt support Google.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Andrew Strasser, 31 Oct 2005 @ 8:22am

If SBC took Google away.
I am pretty sure I'd switch to a better company immediatly. Without the search capability the internet is virtually useless. With all the porn and other worthless stuff on the internet it is useless to most people. In order to keep the internet thriving it takes companies that as stated above do pay their share. Those OS3 lines aren't cheap even in the slightest of sense. SBC is most likely mad as they don't own the patent on OS3 lines.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Thomas, 31 Oct 2005 @ 8:23am

Re: skip the pipes
The inherent problem with satellite is transit time. Seth, you may have information I'm not aware of, but as far as I know the laws of physics dictate that it takes about 1 full second for a packet to make a round trip to a sattelite in a geosynchronous orbit. Now that may be fine for some content, but I prefer my internet to be a bit more responsive than that. For the time being, until someone figures out how to modify physics, internet via landlines is the only really viable model. So it is alarming to see the FCC allowing mergers like this to occur when the CEO's are spouting such garbage.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Stoned4LIfe, 31 Oct 2005 @ 8:24am

Re: They do pay
Wether or not he can IS up to him, the issue would be, "would they pay for it". I hope no. Considering the options, pay up, or lose customers using SBC, it would make sense to pay up (if the charge is reasonable). The fun part would be if they don't pay up, and all the frustrated SBC customers suddenly cancel their service. They would lose thousands. I think that would be the best thing to happen.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
chronicon, 31 Oct 2005 @ 8:32am

Brilliant!
Just another reason for me never to switch to SBC DSL.
Interesting, the first thing that came to mind was the UN's and/or EU's desire to usurp "control" of the internet. Instead of the nice, "everyone gets to play" root servers that we currently have in place (in the US for all the world to use), I can just see this kind of scenario being played out if other interests were to wrest control of them. Pay up or "No DNS for you, one year!"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Seth Brundle, 31 Oct 2005 @ 8:39am

Re: They do pay
Its more complicated then that. Neither Yahoo! nor Google uses SBC as *THEIR* data provider.
The lousy $14.95 home users pay for DSL is a price-warred marginless wasteland compared to the data center fees for Yahoo! and Google.
As a home user, when you buy, say 5 Mbt of bandwidth from Comcast for $50, you are paying $10 Mbt (actually probably $5 with $5 going to customer support etc), but on average, you use virtually zero of it over the course of a month, which is why its only $50.
In reality, a LOT Of home internet providers probably do not even have enough bandwidth for *every* DSL/cable user to do a full speed download simultaneously, and almost certainly not enough switched bandwidth.
So, they actually charge you for what you use more or less, not for the full Mbts. They give you the benefit of the doubt.
As a service provider, you will pay at LEAST 2x-3x as much per Megabit (well, Yahoo! and Google pay much less I'm sure because of volume, but they pay more overall because of volume also).
The reason is that Y! and Google will be saturating their network.
So, SBC is carrying all that Y! and Google traffic over both their home-run (DSL) and backbone networks, but they dont get more money as the usage goes up, only the Y! and Google's data service providers do.
In one way, they have a valid argument, because as the internet grows, home-run internet provider's margins plummet and costs rise.
However, home-run internet providers cannot offer home internet service and block Y! and Google, users will leave immediately.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Schizocat, 31 Oct 2005 @ 8:42am

Re: SBC dangerous nonsense - users pay!
They don't block ports? What are you smoking?

Somewhere between six months and a year ago, "SBC Internet Services (SBCIS) is taking positive steps to help combat junk email and spam....SBCIS began filtering Port 25 to separate outbound SMTP mail from dynamic IP mail. Most SBCIS Members already use SBCIS or Yahoo! SMTP mail servers for outbound email and will not be impacted by this filter." (quoted from their help page)

The options they gave users were 1.convert their outgoing mail to use SBC servers, 2. use VPN or webmail or 3. request that they remove the filter using their "Abuse of Service form," (which I consider an amusing name for that form).

They did this as a way to combat spam, but with a way to remove it, any spammers theoretically do so as well, defeating the purpose, and while I did manage to get them to remove it from my account one of my friends gave up after several tries and never did get it removed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
BSC's Only Joking, Right?, 31 Oct 2005 @ 9:03am

BSC's Only Joking, Right?
I sent and email to Ed as well as SBC Regulatory/Legislative Regulator Mike Balmoris michael.balmoris@sbc.com
--------------
Ed,
I would hope that you were kidding or intoxicated when you made recent remarks about making companies "pay up" for using "your" services.
A few key points to remember:
1) Your customers pay a fee to access the Internet which includes Google, Yahoo, etc.
2) Companies (Google, Yahoo, etc) pay a fee to access the Internet
Do you think you are a Toll Booth and can just step in and stick your extortion hand out?
Google, Yahoo, etc pay based on "amount used". If they use 50 exabytes of bandwidth per month, they pay for it. Do you REALLY think they are getting the use of the pipes for free? And what about not so big websites - "ma and pop" websites?
Based on what you farted out of your bunghole, the following could also happen:
A) If I have a residential phone with SBC, SBC could start making the people that I call also pay a connect fee in order to receive a phone call from me.
B) American Airlines can start charging Florida for all tourists that are flown to Florida.
C) Could Google charge YOU for your customers accessing google.com?

You, as a CEO of a company, have made a flat out fool of yourself and SBC.

Thank You,
A NON SBC Customer (Thank God!)

[ link to this | view in thread ]
steve, 31 Oct 2005 @ 9:05am

Re: connection vs. content
thats very funny
[ link to this | view in thread ]
googly_eyes, 31 Oct 2005 @ 9:14am

RTFA
Ok folks, this isn't /. here, did any of you read the article?
He was referring to Google AS AN ISP (hint all you folks who mentioned Google's free wireless internet forays almost hit the mark)
It's the same rhetoric about other ISP's like SpeakEasy and Covad - ISP's who use SBC's (tax-payer subsidized) copper to provide service to customers, but didn't used to have to worry about SBC extorting them.
He's simply saying that Google can't expect to get their internet pipe for free, so they are going to have to pay SBC (or any other backbone carrier) to offer their free wireless.
He's still an overpaid exec, and not to be trusted, but he's not saying they will cut off web access to any web sites, and the FCC is still asleep at the wheel over this issue.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
J Bernal, 31 Oct 2005 @ 9:18am

SBC-Internet OPEC
Last time I checked my phone bill, I'm paying SBC for ISP usage and our company is paying for local loop internet access charges.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Secolliyn, 31 Oct 2005 @ 9:31am

Re: They do pay
The FCC Should have regulater SBC alot more than they did i mean for instace i have a friend who has DSL from Sonic well he pays 50 Bux a month only b/c SBC Charges Sonic 30.00 Bucks a month to use their lines and sonic only charges 20 A month now here is my Question to SBC How is it Right or even Ethical to Charge other companys 30 a month to use your lines when you can Charge only 14.95 a month for your own DSL i mean think about it anyone who wants to save money would go with SBC/Yahoo DSL it only makes sence it also only makes sence that you should charge your customers to use your lines i mean you charge Sonic to use them but you don't even gice them a break b/c they have so many users it's just not right and that is why i discourage anyone from gett DSL Though SBC/Yahoo and i work at a tech Store and people have listened
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Serenity, 31 Oct 2005 @ 9:52am

Re: They do pay
umm...
heh...yeah...

Its approx 500$ for service connection for a customer to a 3rd party (DSL through ELINK)
Secondly, SBC does not actually provide the total bandwidth anyway to its customers unless the customer knows how to find the information and is willing to call the TS line go through stupid troubleshoooting, get transferred to the DSG wait for a dispatch just to find out they WILL tell you it is an IW issue.. And actually you are wrong about alternate ISPs as well. They are going to be better off as DSL becomes more common and prices will drop unless corporations keep them up with price gouging. Especially since people like SBC can provision for free, except in terms of man-hours. So SBC is already screwing the other ISPs and on top of that do you know how much data OC12/OC64 pipelines can handle.. don't tell me SBC is SUFFERING because they allow traffic, they have been doing it since just about the Dawn of the Internet. Now however they are sucking it up because they mismanaged the whole deal and are being screwed by it.. sounds to me like bad business, and there is no sympathy here.

P.S. and as for the comment about Yahoo or Google not using SBC... For some reason I doubt that very much.. You do know that in order to maintain a 5 9's status you have to have double and triple redundant DS3's and higher right. Which means they are probably paying 15,000 dollars PER Month PER DS3 PER Telco

For Example: In a company I interact with.....
We have 6 DS3's in 6 sites which are rolled and redundant totaling 18 DS3's

from
Qwest
BellSouth
AT&T....

And I know google is bigger by quite a bit... and Ma Bell does own the entire west coast you know.

Ohh did i forget them having to ride a SONET as well.. Since I am sure they do that also... so you can add the SONET Fees in there somewhere.

And as for a provider not providing the best speed. That is by choice and improper management of the ISP. Bandwidth is easy to switch and keep routed properly, however have you ever read you service contract with the ISP.. I promise you it says best-effort: No Service level, yet if they give you one remarkably you get what you pay for... for an extra 100$-1450$ per month.

DSL is and always will be a crap product, and bellsouth has made that the standard.

PS. You get the bandwidth from DSL that you Sync at on the DSLAM, and you can use all of the port at any time.... Period. The virtual circuit path is merely the pipeline to the end it does not care as long as both sides equate to eachother so there is no switched bandwidth, only SVC's which are switched virtual circuits, and what you probably really me is the Load-Balancing that SBC preforms and the CIR Vs. Burst.

Circuit can be put together as a 1536/128 Frac-T Via DSL DSLAM (MUX): Meaning the PVC or SVC
CIR could be somewhere around 768/128 to save SBCs butt and prevent you from actually utilizing you line at which point you would be able to burst to the size of the circuit. e.g 1536/128 for 5-20 seconds and then you drop back to CIR.

So in the end, the bottom line is: The guy above me was right; with the emergence of people like vonage and VOIP and MPLS Networks good ol SBC is watching their whole world slip... And it is glorious indeed: I think the cable company should merge with vonage and offer it only on Cable-Modem connections: and Develope a DOCSIS Cable modem that will maintain power(From the CO-AX) in the loss of a live power-circuit so that vonage could work without the power like a regular phoneline... see how SBC likes that.

Can we tell I hate SBC and the giant dirtstain which is its management. All Hail free Internet: Or give me atleast what i pay for.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
J.P., 31 Oct 2005 @ 10:04am

Re: RTFA
I think you need to go back and reread the article. Cutting off web access to websites is exactly what they are talking about in the above article.

Excerpt-
"In other words, he's talking about going well beyond blocking some ports like BellSouth, to actually blocking out websites and services unless they first pay SBC a fee. It certainly has the feel of extortion: pay up or no one on our network will be able to reach your website. If you thought that mess Level 3 and Cogent was problematic, just wait until you can't access Google from SBC, because Google fails to pay up SBC's "connection" fees. What Whitacre seems to be forgetting is that it's all of these services and the ability to connect that makes the internet access worthwhile."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
john wantz, 31 Oct 2005 @ 10:05am

pay fo pipes
Google created the traffic, and I would like to see someone try to cut them off, SBC shouldnt bite the hand of the internet leaders, or maybe Google might just start their own internet, o wait they are.....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Khurshid Qureshi, 31 Oct 2005 @ 10:06am

SBC: We Own The Internet, So Google Should Pay Up
I think it should be the other way around. SBC should pay Google per customer line. THis is no more different then cable and satellite compnies paying to HBO, Show Time or local TV stations.

Google can also pre-empt and decline to offer its search engine through SBC. This will encourage others to take away business from SBC or better yet Google should just buy SBC and the debate will be ove.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
S, 31 Oct 2005 @ 10:30am

price wars
If I sign up for a service and then my service doesn't work the way it was promised, I leave.

If I can get better service someplace else for a different price (either lower or higher). I will do so.

The way I see it is that they are in this price war for customer grab without the service behind the price. Don't charge me less while promising the world (entire internet content) if you can't keep providing the service.

As a DSL user, I (if I were still an SBC customer) would be punished because SBC didn't use the right price model.

I thought that was what the one year contracts were for? So that at the end of your contract they could say, "Oh, we need to charge you more unless you want to promise to stay with us for another year." Or they could say, "Well, our new contract price is just $5 more because of xyz."

I left SBC because of nightmareish service. They took three months to get my dsl back up after I moved, and forced me to change my email address because they couldnt reactivate my original account. Then I was sent a letter saying my year contract was up and I could go month to month for just $5 without doing anything...so my bill went up $20 and I had to fax them a copy of the letter THEY sent me!

I also ordered a disconnect and it took them two months and repeated phone calls for them to actually do the disconnect and stop billing me. Now they owe me a check ... we will see how long it takes to get that back. I'm not holding my breath.

It doesn't suprise me that they are looking for more revenue...

but the world has become more computer savy and I can't imagne smart people buying a service that blocks them from using the entire internet they way they want. I know I would use a different company and would pay a little more just so I have the freedom to do what I want.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
MrManGuy, 31 Oct 2005 @ 10:33am

cents value=2 owner=
This idea is completely unfair and would certainly restrict the advancement of internet-based technologies and services. I can't think of a worse idea than the one proposed.
IMHO:
-Google is responsible for investing the cash required to support *their* end of the connection.
-I am resonsible for investing in *my* end of the connection (computer hardware *and* service).
-My ISP, to which I am the customer (not Google), should invest my money wisely into the service(s) it provides [to me].
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gerald Gibson, 31 Oct 2005 @ 10:48am

The peoples Internet ... Wireless Mesh
http://research.microsoft.com/mesh/

Got an Windows XP PC and a wireless card? Join the mesh. Lets make a shore to shore wireless mesh from house to house, from school to school, from library to library, from cafe to cafe. Manifest Destiny. Let it spread all across the land becaues the air waves belong to US. An Internet that is in the air between us all.

We dont need SBC. We dont need Comcast. They wasted their money on the land lines. It is time for Americans to stop selling our birth rights!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
john chilcutt, 31 Oct 2005 @ 11:39am

SBC
This is a pure revenue pay -- SBC has the "pipes" and there is indeed pass-thru traffic going into the pipes. SBC is trying to find a way to pass-thru the maintained network facilities cost (read this as the net). So the $26 Trillion (yes Trillion with a T) dollars of investment world-wide becomes less of burden to their shareholders making the profit picture more rosy.. Bigger bonuses for all CEOs concerned.

What they (SBC) would really like is the continuation and upping of the communication connection charge put on every bodies bill (if you have phone number -cell/land line/ VoIP/ Cable system connection/ or ground system connection tied to satellite/ you pay today (either hidden or posted to the bill as a tax.. There is no free lunch � This is the reason for rhetoric.

We as tax payers just need to remind Washington where their "BEAD-AND-BUTTER� come from and where the next dollar will go if our political heroes don�t send a strong, unambiguous message to FCC through the normal rhetorical speeches � that are meant to pass messages without the need for legislation � "My constituents would not like it if you granted SBC the right to pass-thru a greater access-fee."

Read this � your budget might get cut, FCC if you do something like that.

Money and power -- it is a effective conbination.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Swati, 31 Oct 2005 @ 12:10pm

No Subject Given
At least he said it before he did it. Imagine if he straightout did it...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2005 @ 12:21pm

Re: SBC: The New Evil
Why would I want to visit the blog of someone who doesn't realize that the root word for definite is "finite".
-Pease
MjM
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Richard, 31 Oct 2005 @ 12:51pm

Re: SBC dangerous nonsense - users pay!
That is not true. try accessing a IMAP mail server on port 25. you have to use a different port as they have in fact blocked it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
fergle, 31 Oct 2005 @ 1:50pm

Its about time
Finally somebody woke up! The telcos have been undercharging for OC3 and T1 lines for ages. Its about time that they realized that they cant control the sale of content and that VOIP is an anonomy caused by a billing model for connecting pipes to the iternet for less than their market value. Time for the accountants in the telcos to get their shorts in a knot. They messed this up. I sure would not want to be holding shares in a VOIP company...eventually the economics of offering voice over internet will correct itself...or the lady with the nice pipes wont be around any more. Remember its not over til the fat lady sings!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RichardD, 31 Oct 2005 @ 2:01pm

No Subject Given
And no one can talk to a horse of course
That is, of course, unless the horse is the famous Mister Ed."
Mister Ed does not get the new era of networks. He should be encouraging Google, Yahoo, et al. to drive usage on his pipes so that consumers would demand higher speeds at higher rates.
And, Mr. Ed should be investing in new technologies such as WiFi, WiMAX, FTTC instead of buying worn-out companies like AT&T, so that he can compete with the munis (backed by Google in some cases) and cable companies.

[ link to this | view in thread ]
Doctor Memory, 31 Oct 2005 @ 2:10pm

oh please, oh please, oh pretty please
Heh.
Heh.
Heh.
Oh please.
I want them to try this. Hell, I beg them to try this. Block google. Better yet, block Google, Yahoo, Ebay/Skype and Amazon.
And be total bastards about it. Hunker down for a long fight. Get lawyers involved. Issue at least one self-justifying press release a day.
And then watch EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEIR CUSTOMERS leave as fast as their feet can carry them. (Except for the ones sticking around hoping to be part of the inevitable multi-billion-dollar class action lawsuit settlement.)
It'll be fun!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Griffon, 31 Oct 2005 @ 3:50pm

Translation
Well, so what he actualy said was

"SBC plans to become AOL so everybody will give us money to be part of our walled network, and then all the subscribers will pay us money too because we are the internet"

Huh, and the FCC wonders way no competition and2.5 incumbents is bad.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike, 31 Oct 2005 @ 4:47pm

Re: SBC
Speakeasy offers a service called one-link allowing you to have a dsl connection without local phone service. It might be more expensive but you can escape the bundling
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nate, 31 Oct 2005 @ 8:26pm

Re: Mystified
"This would involve some serious reprogramming of their network to accomplish"

Actually this wouldn't take much time at all to accomplish. I imagine that I could do it in about 20 seconds. The hardest part is doing a lookup for what the AS for Google is in the BGP routing table that the Internet works on.

Every Tier 1 provider, and most likely Tier 2|3 ones as well, has a Null Router on their network that they just enter the AS number for Google into and suddenly the routes do not propagate. Basically it effectively shuts down transit across your network for that AS, including shutting down access to your customers. If the customer is not multi-homed, then they do not have access to that part of the Net.

Google Inc. (AS15169) GOOGLE 15169
Google Inc. (AS36039) GOOGLE 36039
Google Inc. (AS36040) GOOGLE 36040

[ link to this | view in thread ]
Serenity, 1 Nov 2005 @ 5:56am

Re: The peoples Internet ... Wireless Mesh
Screw SBC, lets continue selling our souls to microsoft........
feh
(Linux, live free or die by configuration..)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
UMM---- Yeah.., 1 Nov 2005 @ 6:04am

Re: SBC dangerous nonsense - users pay!
Port 143 IMAP
IMAPv4, IMAPv2, IMAPv1 (TCP)

\ My god people...
Port 25 is SMTP....
Of course it does not work...
Did you simply try telnetting to SBCs telnet/mail port???

sbcsmtp1.sbc.com
--numbered 1-8

220 tlph031.enaf.dadc.sbc.com ESMTP Tue, 1 Nov 2005 08:03:11 -0600
helo
501 5.0.0 helo requires domain address

so... yeah SBC is not blocking port 25 for SMTP, however it is locked.. try telneting to port 143
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Haggie, 10 Nov 2005 @ 4:03pm

No Subject Given
If I owned SBC stock, hearing these comments from the CEO would sending me scrambling for the phone to call my stockbroker. Why do I get the feeling that Ed Whitacre doesn't own a cell phone or computer?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
A Bismark, 6 Jan 2006 @ 2:04pm

what if
What if they

1. Slow down the connection to and from Google unless they pay up, but kept it at the highest for other search engines who do pay.
2. They wanted to find out the community response for this, having thought 1. before hand.
3. All this "nuts" business is just a diversion for the real deal, which is to slow down the downlink connection from websites which do not pay up.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Normality, 7 Feb 2006 @ 8:04am

Re: The peoples Internet ... Wireless Mesh
Screw SBC, lets continue selling our souls to microsoft........
feh
(Linux, live free or die by configuration..)

Wow, you're pretty fucked up to have to bash Microsoft during an SBC discussion.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Shannon, 17 Mar 2006 @ 3:17am

Re: Re: skip the pipes
Granted, propagation delay and bandwidth constraints limit the viability of satellite signals to carry IP traffic, but your information here is substantially off. A circular geosynchronous orbit in the equatorial plane has a radius of 42,164km. This places any satellite in such an orbit at approximately 35,786km above mean sea level. A packet transiting the satellite would have to make this distance twice of course for a round trip distance of 71,572km. Since the speed of light is 300,000km/s the total propagation delay introduced by a satellite link is 71,572km / 300,000 km/s or 239 milliseconds.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jak Fox, 28 Mar 2006 @ 8:33am

Northern comments
Real quick now...As I am at work, on break. Communication is being controlled. Most of us don't know or care to know about the inner workings of modern com. equipment. Just get us connected, and keep us there. If any "Human" actually believes they can control anything these days, they are so fucking lost in their minds. We all know how sophisticated communications has become. We do not need another asshole with a position to speak, telling us how things are going to be! We have enough of the same type of old, retiring, never know when to shut up, baby boomers that are beginning to act like babies again. Gimme gimme gimme. For all those people that may read this...Please ignore this part...This is for all of you old, money hungry pricks...On behalf of the new generation of humbled peoples...GO FUCK YOURSELVES...The pipes are ours; all of ours.

Do any Treckies remember the Borg. We definitely need to be thinking and acting as a powerful collective, but not fictitious. The real power of people. It's coming soon, and coming fast. Don't ever forget this. The World needs bright and bold individuals, who know how to speak and lead the rest of us in the same directions. We are not here to make other Humans rich. Those days are over and long gone.

World Security.

World Peace.

It cannot be about $$$ anymore.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
anonymous, 17 Apr 2006 @ 9:58pm

I will leave sbc internet in a heart beat if it restricts my sites (like Yahoo) or levys a fee to my site of choice (which would result in that site passing down that cost to me!!!!!!).

SBC HAS YET TO LEARN THE MEANING OF COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE!

KICK YOUR CUSTOMERS IN THE BALLS AND THET WILL FLEE IN DROVES! After all, there are plenty of alternatives.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Apr 2006 @ 10:12pm

Re: SBC dangerous nonsense - users pay!
succinct and to the point
[ link to this | view in thread ]
candy, 18 Jun 2006 @ 9:04pm

guy model name?
yeah i was wondering if this is the people who made the add for the sbc yahoo dsl pro package. if so i was wondering the models name from that package, cause they are great...
thanks...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
CarboniteHunter, 20 Jun 2006 @ 7:53pm

SBC vs. Google
Simply put: Just put the google head in the ring with Mr. Ed and let them punch-it-out for the answer. However, I don't really care about Google much, as I just get on the net to visit porn sites and whack-off for free to sample pics and vid. clips ( I'm the thrifty sort!...I ain't payin for nuttin' I don't have to! TeeeHeee!) Someone get me some oxygen!...I'm crying over here! Anyway, in general, SBC's service and support, and software sucks so badly it's causing a blackhole. That said, the only attraction is the low cost brodband. Should that not be a good reason to stick around anymore, I will so quickly purge my system of anything related to AT&T/SBC! (Probably will involve a re-formating, as I'm sure that a provider so suck-ass has somehow infected windows with something!) Peace
[ link to this | view in thread ]
CarboniteHunter, 20 Jun 2006 @ 7:57pm

Nah, I knew it was "Broadband", I just typo a bunch!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Robert Davis, 29 Jun 2006 @ 2:57pm

Frack The SBC
Ed must be smoking some real good Crack along with some fucked up weed he got on the streets to come up with that idea. If they do that then guess what people are going to do, most may just say screw this crap and just start Hacking Eds Pipes as he calls them. Hackers always find a way around such problems like this with stupid Mother Frackers like ED. You can tell that Ed never got much pussy because he's a real Beeiatch if you know what I mean. Thank You Robert Davis Webmaster/Owner: www.mybmorecity.net
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2006 @ 12:23pm

fuck sbc
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2006 @ 12:24pm

Re:
fuck you coward!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John dean, 4 Jan 2007 @ 10:40pm

Say what you want but Bandwidth costs are getting lower.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
sbcsucks, 14 Jan 2007 @ 7:43pm

Re:
RIGHT ON. SBC'S SUCKS MAJOR DICK
[ link to this | view in thread ]
george, 6 Mar 2007 @ 6:46pm

SBC? Tell me this
Since everybody's on the subject of SBC, what does SBC have too do with Time Warner cable? We've had Time Warner Road Kill cable since last year about July 06. And we've had nothing, AND I'M TALKING ABOUT NOTHING!!!, but trouble with this service. HACKED! HACKED! HACKED! LOT'S OF IT, EXTREAM, TRUST ME!!! And it seems that a lot of it's coming from SBC. SCREW SBC!!! I, nor anyone from our household want anything to do with SBC!!! EVER!!! AND TIME WARNER'S NEXT UP ON THE LIST!!! Has anyone else had this problem?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
george, 6 Mar 2007 @ 6:47pm

SBC? Tell me this
Since everybody's on the subject of SBC, what does SBC have too do with Time Warner cable? We've had Time Warner Road Kill cable since last year about July 06. And we've had nothing, AND I'M TALKING ABOUT NOTHING!!!, but trouble with this service. HACKED! HACKED! HACKED! LOT'S OF IT, EXTREAM, TRUST ME!!! And it seems that a lot of it's coming from SBC. SCREW SBC!!! I, nor anyone from our household want anything to do with SBC!!! EVER!!! AND TIME WARNER'S NEXT UP ON THE LIST!!! Has anyone else had this problem?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Arial Lancaster, 19 Apr 2007 @ 10:15am

I am paying for the pipes!
Hey, what do they mean Google is using the internet for free. I am paying a monthly fee to use the internet... Google is one of the things I use while on the internet at MY EXPENSE! These internet providers just want to get paid twice.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Alex, 26 Sep 2008 @ 2:07am

Fuck This Douchbag
This is bullshit, I pay for the access to the internet, I pay to use 'his pipes', but I can't access wikipedia, facebook, projecplaylist and many others because THEY DIDN'T PAY HIM? I am paying for access, and he is connecting ME TO THEM, not the other way around. If this keeps up, anyone who finds out about this will switch services and sbc will go under. Good riddance if he doesn't change his mind.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Marki, 29 Oct 2008 @ 4:18pm

Google the retarded psychopaths
I'm so pissed of with google.They continue to be the psychopaths that they are, they seem to get some preverted enjoyment from their psychopathic behavior "which psychopath does't" eg. punch in youtube from their search engine, yes, youtube does come up, click it, what do you get, a bunch of stupid advertisements, keep trying other pages, same thing! How fucking retarded. Furthermore,when you finnally do get to youtube try watching a video, are you suprised? you get a message "this video is currently unavailable" I just watched it when I come back to it I get this message. Want to save all your favorite videos which by the way youtube offers you your own page to save them to. I have to continually edit my favorites daily because you can't watch the videos that you have saved they are not available anymore well how typical. A bunch of corporate pychopaths that factually don't know what they are doing, again how typical. Google has shown their psychopathic selves to be less than honest & to treat their resonsibilites to the web like shit.I really hope they keep this up because it is going to be their downfall & rightly so. Any level headed individual can see this as google not being sane,their behavior is not normal for the image that most corporate companies will kill to get, because it is a lasting impression to the public.I will never ever forget this because you can't. Once they have fucked around they will never get the chance to do it again atleast in my world. GOOGLE HAS SHOWN THEIR TRUE COLORS,ASSHOLE PSYCHOPATHS. An old saying that comes to light in this situation is, "give them enough rope & they will truely hang themselves" HOW TRUE, THEY WOULD FUCK UP RUNNING A SHIT HOUSE LET ALONE A CORPORATION.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2008 @ 6:15pm

Re: I am paying for the pipes!
Yep, I agree
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Marki, 31 Oct 2008 @ 6:23pm

Re: Re: I am paying for the pipes!
by Anonymous Coward

Who the fuck are you calling a coward, idiot shit stain!
You need your fucked up teeth kicked out of your ugly hidious face. FREAK!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Megaten, 17 Nov 2008 @ 10:32am

Support for netneutrality
Let us hope the future President honours his speech here http://obama.senate.gov/podcast/060608-network_neutral/
[ link to this | view in thread ]