SBC: We Own The Internet, So Google Should Pay Up
from the uh-oh.--trouble-coming. dept
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
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in thread ]
They do pay
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 ]
SBC dangerous nonsense - users pay!
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 ]
Websites owners need to pay the bandwidth use of t
Wow, isn't he clever. This goes on my "most clever idea" wall... :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
WTF!?
I'm proud to say that I am NOT an SBC customer.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
SBC
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: WTF!?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
satel lite is heavy
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 ]
No Subject Given
It'll be fucking hilarious.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This is just crazy!
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 ]
Re: satel lite is heavy
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 ]
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in thread ]
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in thread ]
SBC: The New Evil
Just in time for Halloween:
From Business Week: At SBC, It's All About "Scale and Scope"
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 ]
Mystified
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 ]
Excuse Me
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pitty
I am already considering jumping ship to Cable and hoping they do not do the same.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
SBC
[ link to this | view in thread ]
skip the pipes
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The other way arround
[ link to this | view in thread ]
riiiiiight
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 ]
SBC
[ link to this | view in thread ]
No Subject Given
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 ]
connection vs. content
[ link to this | view in thread ]
What If...
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 ]
Can't wait for free Wi-fi everywhere...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
"SBC" Bite me, and everyone else....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: SBC: The New Evil
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: They do pay
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: SBC dangerous nonsense - users pay!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: SBC dangerous nonsense - users pay!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Buy ATT stock and fire him
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 ]
So they plan to bill every webmaster for traffic?
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 ]
SBC as an Entity
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 ]
No Subject Given
if google has to pay sbc then sbc has to pay me
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Append: Stock
[ link to this | view in thread ]
SBC is scared....
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 ]
By all means!!!
You cant offer a home internet service which doesnt support Google.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
If SBC took Google away.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: skip the pipes
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: They do pay
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Brilliant!
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 ]
Re: They do pay
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 ]
Re: SBC dangerous nonsense - users pay!
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?
--------------
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 ]
Re: connection vs. content
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RTFA
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 ]
SBC-Internet OPEC
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: They do pay
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: They do pay
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 ]
Re: RTFA
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 ]
pay fo pipes
[ link to this | view in thread ]
SBC: We Own The Internet, So Google Should Pay Up
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 ]
price wars
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 ]
cents value=2 owner=
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 ]
The peoples Internet ... Wireless 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 ]
SBC
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 ]
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: SBC: The New Evil
-Pease
MjM
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: SBC dangerous nonsense - users pay!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Its about time
[ link to this | view in thread ]
No Subject Given
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 ]
oh please, oh please, oh pretty please
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 ]
Translation
"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 ]
Re: SBC
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Mystified
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 ]
Re: The peoples Internet ... Wireless Mesh
feh
(Linux, live free or die by configuration..)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: SBC dangerous nonsense - users pay!
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 ]
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in thread ]
what if
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 ]
Re: The peoples Internet ... Wireless Mesh
Wow, you're pretty fucked up to have to bash Microsoft during an SBC discussion.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: skip the pipes
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Northern comments
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 ]
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 ]
Re: SBC dangerous nonsense - users pay!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
guy model name?
thanks...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
SBC vs. Google
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Frack The SBC
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
SBC? Tell me this
[ link to this | view in thread ]
SBC? Tell me this
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I am paying for the pipes!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Fuck This Douchbag
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Google the retarded psychopaths
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I am paying for the pipes!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: I am paying for the pipes!
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 ]
Support for netneutrality
[ link to this | view in thread ]