acousticiris writes "If there were any delusions that Ma Bell Wasn't Back, SBC CEO Edward Witacre has cleared that up in an interview with Business Week Online. When asked about Google, Vonage and other Internet Upstarts he responded in typical Ma Bell Style: '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?'." SBC CEO: Pay up if you want to use our pipes Log in/Create an Account | Top | 576 comments (Spill at 50!) | Index Only | Search Discussion Display Options Threshold: -1: 576 comments 0: 569 comments 1: 496 comments 2: 369 comments 3: 113 comments 4: 69 comments 5: 47 comments Flat Nested No Comments Threaded Oldest First Newest First Highest Scores First Oldest First (Ignore Threads) Newest First (Ignore Threads) The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way. (1) | 2 Somehow (Score:5, Funny) by Short Circuit (52384) * <mikemol@NOSPaM.gmail.com> on Monday October 31, @11:39AM (#13915752) (http://citygen.org/ | Last Journal: Monday October 31, @08:58AM) This [bash.org] doesn't seem as funny as it used to be. [ Reply to ThisRe:Somehow by igny (Score:2) Monday October 31, @02:07PMInteresting Analogy by Elranzer (Score:2) Monday October 31, @02:35PMRe:Interesting Analogy by rholliday (Score:2) Monday October 31, @11:36PM Re:Somehow (Score:5, Insightful) by orkysoft (93727) <orkysoft&myrealbox,com> on Monday October 31, @11:48AM (#13915855) (http://perlmonks.org/?node_id=17227 | Last Journal: Saturday June 04, @10:55AM) What do you mean, their own demise? Google is one of the things that make the internet more useful and more attractive to people.Oh, wait, you mean that a useful and attractive internet means people are going to not sign up for SBC broadband! Of course, how silly of me that I didn't see your impeccable logic for what it is immediately! [ Reply to This | Parent Shades of Things to Come (Re:Somehow) (Score:5, Insightful) by chronicon (625367) on Monday October 31, @12:42PM (#13916372) (http://explicate.blogspot.com/) Just another reason for me to never switch to SBC DSL. What a brilliant tactical move, I can't think of a better way to alienate your customers then by cutting off the very services that they are dispensing their funds to you to get to...This is sure to set off a firestorm of US bashing, but the first thing that came to mind when I read this quote today was the interest in the UN and/or EU in wresting "control" of the internet from the hands of the US. Is this the type of thing we would see if these other parties gained control of the root servers? Pay up or no DNS for you??Only in that case you (as a consumer) wouldn't have the option of punishing them for this outrageous behavior with your pocketbook by switching to another provider. You would just have to a) hope that the service provider (Google, Yahoo, whomever) would pay the piper; or b) you might simply be stuck if the service/information you wanted to access was deemed unacceptable and therefore all access to it via DNS was eliminated. (Hopefully you could root out [forgive the pun, I had to do it] the IP address on your own or you would REALLY be out of luck)... [ Reply to This | Parent Re:Shades of Things to Come (Re:Somehow) (Score:5, Insightful) by malkavian (9512) on Monday October 31, @02:14PM (#13917126) (http://seth.dyndns.org/) Actually, the article seems to point to this kind of behaviour existing in the US. Not the EU. Still, that's neither here nor there, as I'm sure it exists in other countries also.Change the US and EU around in your statements and you can see exactly why the rest of the world is nervous about leaving the DNS in the hands of an organisation which is on a short leash to a governmental trade department.However, that's a whole other story, done to death in other threads..Do quite agree with ye though that the SBC quote seems a little heavy handed.... [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Shades of Things to Come (Re:Somehow) by chronicon (Score:3) Monday October 31, @02:40PMBroken by Create an Account (Score:2) Monday October 31, @04:01PMRe:Broken by chronicon (Score:2) Monday October 31, @04:23PMRe:Shades of Things to Come (Re:Somehow) by Shakrai (Score:2) Monday October 31, @02:45PMRe:Shades of Things to Come (Re:Somehow) by Sqwubbsy (Score:2) Monday October 31, @02:51PM Re:Shades of Things to Come (Re:Somehow) (Score:5, Interesting) by chronicon (625367) on Monday October 31, @03:18PM (#13917591) (http://explicate.blogspot.com/) Oh, come off your high horse and actually RTFA before you start on your rant. All he says is that Google/et. all shouldn't get free access to his lines. He also points out that Google's customers (us) can't very well access Google without his lines or the lines of his competitors. Unless Google is going to get into the Tier 1 business then I don't see this changing any time soon.And, pray tell, what are the consumers paying for? What in the world is wrong with bailing from them as your ISP if they start blocking the services you want/need? What do you need them for if you can't Google?And another thing, who says Google is getting their pipes for free? I'm sure they pay a kings ransom for their leased lines.So... neither the consumer nor Google is getting anything from SBC for free. So I'm staying right here on my high horse thank you. This CEO is just trying to generate revenue streams out of thin air. If he implements that particular scheme, then if I were a customer (which I am not), I would walk away. Let's see how long his consumer internet services revenues last then...I don't hate SBC, I just think this line of thought for generating revenue is a really bad idea--as his level and on up... [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Shades of Things to Come (Re:Somehow) by DaveJay (Score:2) Monday October 31, @04:36PMRe:Shades of Things to Come (Re:Somehow) by $nyper (Score:2) Monday October 31, @04:51PMRe:Shades of Things to Come (Re:Somehow) by Shakrai (Score:2) Monday October 31, @05:49PMRe:Shades of Things to Come (Re:Somehow) by surprise_audit (Score:2) Monday October 31, @10:58PMRe:Shades of Things to Come (Re:Somehow) by chronicon (Score:1) Tuesday November 01, @12:44AMRe:Shades of Things to Come (Re:Somehow) by chronicon (Score:2) Monday October 31, @01:29PMRe:right... by chronicon (Score:2) Monday October 31, @03:09PM2 replies beneath your current threshold.Re:Somehow by scbysnx (Score:1) Monday October 31, @01:31PMRe:Somehow by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Monday October 31, @02:10PMRe:Somehow by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Monday October 31, @03:40PM Re:Somehow (Score:5, Insightful) by masoncooper (443243) on Monday October 31, @02:24PM (#13917206) I think you missed the point. Google and Vonage are not using SBC's lines. SBC's customers are using SBC's lines (which they have paid for) to access Google and Vonage. This is like the RIAA/Apple skirmish, it's simply that one side sees money being made and wants a cut of it. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Somehow by PacketScan (Score:1) Monday October 31, @03:14PM Re:Somehow (Score:5, Insightful) by JSBiff (87824) on Monday October 31, @04:10PM (#13918082) The problem is, Google, et. al. already pay for their pipes, too. Nobody is getting a free ride. The end-user pays for their broadband connection (as you've pointed out), Google pays for its Internet connection (Google must have one helluva broadband bill), and the ISP's have traffic interchange agreements between them (I think it boils down to whoever passes more data has to pay - if they 'trade' an equal amount of data, then they probably don't charge each other - although I'm sure it all boils down to the individual contracts that govern peering).The point is, this guy is a greedy jackass who is trying to make out like other companies are getting a free ride using the bandwidth I and they *already* payed for. If google, et. al have to start paying SBC for the bandwidth I already payed for, SBC better start giving me free DSL service (all this is hypothetical, as I currently use TimeWarner cable for internet access).The one potentially hopefull thing in all this is, because of the fact that cable companies are competing with the phone companies, (and things like city-wide WiFi networks are being created) SBC doesn't really quite have the clout that its CEO seems to think it does - just imagine what would happen if SBC suddenly disallowed access to all the websites/services that people normally use the internet for, because they didn't pay this fee? All SBC's customers would probably switch ISP's pretty fast, leaving SBC wondering what happened. Simply put, SBC needs Google, Vonage, and the rest of the Internet more than the rest of the Internet needs SBC.I still do wonder, though, what *geniuses* at the FTC have allowed the re-aggregation of all the baby bells after government spent massive amounts of money, and 10 years of litigation, trying to break them up. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Somehow by sjames (Score:2) Monday October 31, @06:54PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Don't feed the troll by rossifer (Score:2) Monday October 31, @02:15PMFair access by tricorn (Score:2) Monday October 31, @04:23PM Re:Somehow (Score:5, Insightful) by BlogPope (886961) on Monday October 31, @12:07PM (#13916084) Why should they freely facilitate their own demise? Why should they provide their customers the service they signed up for? They promised to provide access to the internet for a certain price, not to some subset of the internet that agreed to pay their extortion. If they can't make a profit, why is this Cogent's fault? Did SBC inform their customers they would be used like this? Will they be compensated for being unable to connect to work because SBC's CEO isn't getting a big enough bonus check? [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Somehow by gb506 (Score:3) Monday October 31, @12:38PMRe:Somehow by mrlpz (Score:2) Monday October 31, @12:49PMRe:Somehow by Brushfireb (Score:2) Monday October 31, @01:29PMRe:Somehow by TinyManCan (Score:2) Monday October 31, @02:29PMRe:Somehow by sandwiches (Score:1) Monday October 31, @02:59PMRe:Somehow by Al Dimond (Score:2) Monday October 31, @12:50PM Re:Somehow (Score:5, Informative) by robertjw (728654) on Monday October 31, @01:29PM (#13916750) (http://www.alltheinfo.org/) Most of what you discuss are just basic CYA stuff for your ISP.The 'offensive, embarrassing, pornographic' clause is there to save them if you start distributing kiddie pornThe restriction on business/commercial use is to keep you from taking advantage of their system by running a server or sucking up all of their bandwidth with multiple employeesThe wifi thing is to keep you from sharing a connection with all your neighbors that don't want to pay for the service - although if you do it right I don't know how they could detect you running a router.As far as the NAT, check out http://www.no-ip.com./ [www.no-ip.com] I use their free service to ssh into my home machine on a cable network without a static IP. Been doing it for over a year and haven't had any problems yet.Bottom line is the contract, from what you relayed to us, doesn't state that they will filter any sites. It definitely doesn't appear to say that you can only access locations that have a contract with the ISP, which is what SBC is appearantly trying to do. [ Reply to This | Parent Re:Somehow (Score:4, Informative) by bonehead (6382) on Monday October 31, @02:07PM (#13917061) As far as the NAT, check out http://www.no-ip.com./ [www.no-ip.com] I use their free service to ssh into my home machine on a cable network without a static IP. Been doing it for over a year and haven't had any problems yet.I'm not sure how that's going to help him if he's behind a NAT. While not technically a requirement, a machine behind a NAT will usually have an RFC 1918 IP address (10.x.x.x, 172.16.x.x, or 192.168.x.x). Since these are not routable on the public Internet, a dynamic DNS service isn't going to help him a bit. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Somehow by stanmann (Score:1) Monday October 31, @03:43PMRe:Somehow by nhstar (Score:2) Monday October 31, @03:50PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Somehow by Al Dimond (Score:2) Monday October 31, @02:39PMRe:Somehow by jp10558 (Score:3) Monday October 31, @03:47PMWow, mod parent up by Al Dimond (Score:1) Monday October 31, @04:54PMRe:Somehow by robertjw (Score:2) Monday October 31, @03:55PMRe:Somehow by temcat (Score:1) Monday October 31, @04:39PMRe:Somehow by Al Dimond (Score:2) Monday October 31, @05:19PMRe:Somehow by robertjw (Score:2) Monday October 31, @05:48PMRe:Somehow by Al Dimond (Score:2) Monday October 31, @08:11PMRe:Somehow by robertjw (Score:2) Monday October 31, @09:00PMchanging contracts clauses by falconwolf (Score:2) Monday October 31, @05:36PMRe:Somehow by Anonymous Coward (Score:3) Monday October 31, @01:45PM Re:Somehow (Score:4, Informative) by gte910h (239582) on Monday October 31, @01:56PM (#13916972) (http://slashdot.org/) Look at logmein.com...its not ssh, more like vnc, but it will work in your situation. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Somehow by Al Dimond (Score:2) Monday October 31, @03:19PMRe:Somehow by gte910h (Score:2) Monday October 31, @04:05PM Re:Somehow (Score:4, Insightful) by jrboatright (843291) on Monday October 31, @01:09PM (#13916586) (http://www.vocshop.com/) Because they didn't offer that. They would be happy to if you're prepared to pay what that costs. We do. For 19.95 a month, you get filtered network connections, no ability to run a server dynamic IP addresses, and capped bandwidth. For 99.95 a month you get static ip's, no filters, and the ability to run anything you want. "Real" internet connections. SBC delivers exactly what you contracted for. Why is this upsetting to you. You want cheap, you get cheap, you want full pipes, you PAY for full pipes. DUH. That copper costs money, the electricity to run the system, the techs in the trucks, the poles, etc etc etc all cost money.When you have high-bandwidth wireless freely serving everyone in Osage County Kansas, then get back to me.Rick [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Somehow by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Monday October 31, @03:01PMRe:Somehow by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Monday October 31, @03:26PMRe:Somehow by Anonymous Coward (Score:3) Monday October 31, @03:48PMRe:Somehow by timeOday (Score:2) Monday October 31, @03:50PM Re:Somehow (Score:5, Insightful) by Atryn (528846) on Monday October 31, @12:17PM (#13916164) (http://moral.lib.usf.edu/) We all know that information wants to be free... apparently telecom lines want to be free too. That's right! And as soon as the world realizes that food, shelter, energy and access to clean drinking water also want to be free this will be a much better world... After that, I'll push for cars, entertainment and space travel... They want to be free too! [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Somehow by ShieldW0lf (Score:2) Monday October 31, @01:59PMRe:Somehow by drakaan (Score:2) Monday October 31, @02:24PMRe:Somehow by ShieldW0lf (Score:2) Monday October 31, @05:03PMRe:Somehow by shutdown -p now (Score:2) Monday October 31, @08:48PM Re:Somehow (Score:5, Insightful) by Afrosheen (42464) on Monday October 31, @02:14PM (#13917133) (http://supermame.by-a.com/) Telecom lines *should* be free. This was part of the telecommunications act nearly a decade ago. Big providers like SBC get government and municipality-granted monopolies in exchange for 'playing nice' with others.  The original reasoning behind the friendly monopoly was to prevent divergent standards in telecom from emerging and to prevent mass destruction of public property. Think about it this way...one company, one city, many streets and alleyways. Any time SBC lays new fiber, runs new lines, erects new poles, etc. the city is well aware of it. The proper forms are filled out and streets are closed/traffic redirected/people are notified.  Now imagine there are 4 telcos in your city. Each one will be on their own upgrade and repair schedule. Each one will fight for customers. Each one will be loathe to exchange with other companies' traffic. Each one will tear up streets during upgrade cycles. See the problem here? Telecom is considered important enough for city governments not to fuck with it, just like the power company. A phone, a water pipe, and power to every address is not too much to ask for.  If our government worked better, i.e. wasn't so slow and wasteful, I'd wish that we'd have government controlled telecom. We could have a national telecom policy that'd bring us fine things like fiber to the home like Japan, Korea, *insert better connected country here* does. SBC is an impediment to progress, while they're in the position to push it forward, they have to make sure to squeeze every last penny out of what they've already invested. So of course, the CEO will boldly say 'you must pay to use our lines'. The shareholders would expect nothing less. Common corporate bs here.  What would happen if they were unable to exact a charge on companies sharing their lines? To the shareholders, they're giving something away for free. To them, they're losing money on legacy hardware (i.e. the paths they provide have already been bought and paid for many times over). They fought like hell in court to prevent the telecom act, and it's easy to see why. The cable companies have the upper hand here, because the playing field is somewhat more level for them. They're not as strictly regulated and don't have to share their infrastructure with others. They still compete with each other and tear up public property occasionally but they're not as 'necessary' as SBC is. Yet. SBC has said time and again that if they had the right protection they would invest the billions required to put fiber to the curb. Verizon, in some areas, has already beaten them to the punch.  Basically to sum it all up, SBC is becoming a model for corporate greed and sloth. Just like Microsoft or any other company that gets too big, they never want to play nice and share with others for fear of losing a few bucks in the exchange.  [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Somehow by feepness (Score:2) Monday October 31, @02:19PMRe:Somehow by terranman2 (Score:1) Monday October 31, @06:27PMRe:Somehow by Afrosheen (Score:2) Monday October 31, @11:21PMRe:Somehow by dbIII (Score:2) Monday October 31, @05:55PMRe:Somehow by MindStalker (Score:3) Monday October 31, @12:20PM Re:Somehow (Score:4, Insightful) by Verteiron (224042) * on Monday October 31, @12:29PM (#13916263) (http://slashdot.org/) Actually since most consumer broadband "contracts" include a clause stating that they can be changed at any time without notice, SBC probably can change those just 'cause they see a new revenue source. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Somehow by dbrutus (Score:2) Monday October 31, @01:14PMIn contract law it used to be... by arfonrg (Score:3) Monday October 31, @03:43PMRe:Somehow by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Monday October 31, @03:58PMRe:Somehow by pipingguy (Score:2) Monday October 31, @11:08PM I really don't see a problem with SBC's logic. by falconwolf (Score:2) Monday October 31, @01:52PMHalf a concept... by jpellino (Score:2) Monday October 31, @05:43PM3 replies beneath your current threshold. Uhhhh.... (Score:5, Insightful) by ShyGuy91284 (701108) on Monday October 31, @11:40AM (#13915765) Don't they have ISP fees much like we do, whom probably pay the phone company for using their "pipes"? [ Reply to This Re:Uhhhh.... (Score:5, Insightful) by BlogPope (886961) on Monday October 31, @11:54AM (#13915926) This is the same issue L3 and Cogent had. They have the customers, someone else has the content. Their customers want access to the content, but generally don't have any content themselves, creating an unbalanced situation. In days of yore, all ISP's had a mix of content users and content providers, and they all agreed to share access at no cost. No you have providers like L3, Comcast, SBC, and Verizon who specialize in the user side of the equation, and have various mechanisms in place to dissuade content hosting. By this very nature, they will wind up receiving far more traffic than they send. Now, these pipsqueaks (in the ISP world, they are small) are causing a fuss, wanting to get paid for all this extra traffic that is being put on their network, far more than they are putting on others networks. But what about the flip side? These ISP's are Leeches writ large, sucking other users content while providing non of their own. They charge clients $$ for access to the internet, then want to charge the internet for access to their clients.Bad stuff is coming. This will be fought amonst the smaller Tier 1's, and it will be a bloodbath. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Uhhhh.... by Mysticalfruit (Score:2) Monday October 31, @12:36PMCould someone please tell me.... by HotNeedleOfInquiry (Score:1) Monday October 31, @01:02PM Re:Could someone please tell me.... (Score:4, Informative) by Ulven (679148) on Monday October 31, @01:09PM (#13916583) Balkanize: To divide (a region or territory) into small, often hostile units.[From the political division of the Balkans in the early 20th century.] [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Could someone please tell me.... by Iguanaphobic (Score:2) Monday October 31, @01:15PMThe horror that was the 80's by Thud457 (Score:1) Monday October 31, @04:31PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Uhhhh.... by chronicon (Score:2) Monday October 31, @01:21PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Uhhhh.... by Altus (Score:3) Monday October 31, @12:58PMRe:Uhhhh.... by jpostel (Score:2) Monday October 31, @02:21PMRe:Uhhhh.... by Keybounce (Score:1) Monday October 31, @07:08PM Re:Uhhhh.... (Score:5, Interesting) by bigpat (158134) on Monday October 31, @01:11PM (#13916600) They charge clients $$ for access to the internet, then want to charge the internet for access to their clients.Yes, this is what the middleman always tries to do, in the case of communications services that is why we impose government regulation, which in turn creates a whole new set of middlemen but this time with guns.Really what this fucker, Edward Witacre, is saying that his customers need to pay him twice for access to other people's content which his customers themselves go out and request. If he was talking about Spammers only, then that might be an acceptable point, but he wouldn't exaclty be looking out for his customers if he took kickbacks from spammers. So , really we are talking about content that his customers want and are already paying the content providers to receive. And apparently he is charging those customers enough money to make a profit already, so his "need" to charge the other end of the communciation to be able to respond to his customers requests is purely based upon greed not neccesity or any reasonable notion of equity and fairness.Also, we should beware QoS (Quality of Service), it is the ISPs way of charging for differentiation of services. If the ISPs have their way they will delay packets that haven't paid a QoS tax. Far from being a way of providing better service to those that need it, it is a way of getting those that need lower latency (and can "afford" it) to pay more. So, those that have money (businesses, rich individuals) will get screwed by having to pay more for Internet Access and those that are paying less will get screwed when their packets are queued up for whatever arbitrary amount of time will squeeze the most money out of people. QoS will kill the Internet as a flexible communications platform. QoS is the DRM of networking. [ Reply to This | Parent Re:Uhhhh.... (Score:5, Insightful) by electroniceric (468976) on Monday October 31, @01:55PM (#13916959) in the case of communications services that is why we impose government regulation, which in turn creates a whole new set of middlemen but this time with guns. ..and the government at least has a charter to represent the public interest. When regulation is done properly, it means the regulators strike a balance between consumer interests (public as consumer) and business interests (public as worker and investor). The problem is that for 20 years there have been no serious efforts to make any forward reaching regulation, under the various arguments that "regulation always makes things worse", and "the government can't keep up with the market". There's some truth to these criticisms, but AFAICT the main problem has always been that we continue to allow vertical integration between a competitive market (carrier services) and natural-monopoly public infrastructure (phone lines and bandwidth). The minute we separate them, we can deregulate the carrier market all we like, and it will promptly commoditize. Telephone lines can be kept either a a government-provided service (which would probably make their quality work at at about the level of roads), or go back to utility-style control of the maintenance providers.This CEO says he "owns" the pipes. Fine, let's get the government all the way out of this venture. I want a reckoning of much money local, state, federal governments have put into the building and maintenance of those pipes. And if SBC's going to "own" them, they'd better cut those governments some big ass checks to compensate them for their investments, and the government can plow that into making the communications market competitive again. Otherwise, I hope the state AG's start looking hard in SBC's direction... [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Uhhhh.... by theVP (Score:3) Monday October 31, @02:35PMRe:Uhhhh.... by DrJimbo (Score:3) Monday October 31, @04:52PMRight of way by sjames (Score:2) Monday October 31, @07:21PMtheir sacred right to step on a rake by ^Z (Score:2) Monday October 31, @04:25PMRe:Uhhhh.... by dbrutus (Score:2) Monday October 31, @01:57PMRe:Uhhhh.... by xmedar (Score:1) Monday October 31, @02:58PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.And in Soviet Russia.... by Mike Keester (Score:1) Monday October 31, @02:56PMMissing the point by HardCase (Score:2) Monday October 31, @03:50PMRe:Missing the point by steve_bryan (Score:2) Tuesday November 01, @12:22AMRe:Uhhhh.... by MadCow42 (Score:2) Monday October 31, @04:49PMRe:Uhhhh.... by thogard (Score:1) Tuesday November 01, @12:23AM2 replies beneath your current threshold. Empty Threat (Score:5, Insightful) by Godeke (32895) * on Monday October 31, @11:40AM (#13915769) The comment is interesting, but an empty threat. The *customer* is paying for the pipes. The companies that the customer contacts are not using the broadband pipe except on behalf of the customer: any downstream transmitted across that pipe is paid for by the customer. As a specific example, I can pay for various downstream speeds with my cable company and DSL is ordered with a speed for upstream and downstream. That price breakdown makes it clear that the broadband payment I'm making is for both upstream and downstream, otherwise why would my upstream remain constant but my downstream increase if I throw more money at the cable company?On the other side of the fence the "Internet Upstarts" are paying for *their* pipes as well. Even the pipes "in the middle" are indirectly paid for, although that process can sometimes breakdown (as Level3 and Cogent are proving). It isn't like there is some magic way to get access from point A to point B "for free". The costs are just bundled in your access bills. What ticks off a telecom is that the prices for packets are so darn *cheap*. It makes land line voice look expensive, which is driving the adoption of VOIP.If they decide that paying for your pipes (both directions) doesn't give you access to the services you want, the only option is to impose filtering. If they decide to filter, block or otherwise prevent the customer from unhindered access to Internet products they will be in violation of the common carrier provisions. Which is fine if they want to then make a stab at blocking *all* bad stuff the Internet contains. However, I suspect that's not where they want to be, as without common carrier status they become liable for anything they *fail* to block.Frankly, all this comment proves is that they are desperate for revenue and yet know they can't raise rates on telephone services (thanks to regulation) so they are flailing around for anything they can think of. Legal probably sent him a "memo" right after that comment got back to them though, as I'm pretty sure *they* understand the ramification of the implied threat. [ Reply to ThisRe:Empty Threat by El Cubano (Score:3) Monday October 31, @11:47AMRe:Empty Threat by Eugene (Score:2) Monday October 31, @12:18PMRe:Empty Threat by DrLlama (Score:1) Monday October 31, @05:37PMRe:Empty Threat by Eugene (Score:2) Monday October 31, @10:12PMDamn Straight.... by HotNeedleOfInquiry (Score:3) Monday October 31, @01:07PMRe:Damn Straight.... by rcamera (Score:2) Monday October 31, @02:19PMRe:Damn Straight.... by HotNeedleOfInquiry (Score:2) Monday October 31, @03:27PMRe:Empty Threat by klui (Score:2) Monday October 31, @01:20PMRe:Empty Threat by airjrdn (Score:2) Monday October 31, @01:58PM Nowhere for customers to go..... (Score:4, Informative) by Danathar (267989) on Monday October 31, @02:43PM (#13917339) I find it interesting reading all the comments about "Well...if they do that then change providers" as if EVERYBODY as multiple broadband providers.FACT:The Majority of DSL/Broadband users have one and ONLY one provider available to them. Cable and DSL co-exist ONLY within short distance of CO office facilities. Beyond the DSL length restriction Cable modems are practically (don't start on high latency satelight) the only game in town. If Adelphia decided to block google there is not a damn thing I could do about it besides paying to provision a data line to my house. DSL really is'nt deployed on back roads beyond major metro areas. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Empty Threat by zasos (Score:1) Monday October 31, @11:48AM Re:Empty Threat (Score:5, Insightful) by Random832 (694525) on Monday October 31, @11:56AM (#13915956) and they'll be dealt with in a similar maner how monopolist in operating system market where dealt with...with a slap on the wrist? [ Reply to This | ParentWelll.... by chriso11 (Score:2) Monday October 31, @12:02PM Re:Welll.... (Score:5, Funny) by Distinguished Hero (618385) on Monday October 31, @12:07PM (#13916080) Plus evil.google.com would probably be in beta for a very long time. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Welll.... by slazzy (Score:2) Monday October 31, @12:36PMRe:Welll.... by ElectroBot (Score:1) Monday October 31, @03:28PM Re:Empty Threat (Score:5, Informative) by Tmack (593755) on Monday October 31, @12:13PM (#13916131) (http://tmack.net/ | Last Journal: Wednesday July 20, @09:41PM) But if there is only one (is there more?) Internet backbone There are several "backbone" networks. The tier 1 orgs mentioned in the submission (Level3 and Cogent) are just 2 of them. Each has a network that spans a large geographic region and peers with many smaller networks and other tier 1 networks. This network of networks is the collective internet backbone. One could go away completely, and a good bit of the internet would still be around, just the customers on only 1 upstream provider would be on a network to nowhere, and would be unavailable to the world until their ISP got a link to a different tier 1. Though Level3 is playing like a monopoly, they are not, and got reminded of that with the result of their Cogent dispute.tm [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Empty Threat by General Wesc (Score:1) Monday October 31, @01:54PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Empty Threat by Cramer (Score:2) Monday October 31, @01:19PMRe:Empty Threat by zasos (Score:1) Monday October 31, @02:50PMinternet backbone by falconwolf (Score:2) Monday October 31, @03:14PMRe:internet backbone by zasos (Score:1) Monday October 31, @03:16PMRe:internet backbone by falconwolf (Score:2) Monday October 31, @03:33PMRe:Empty Threat by paranode (Score:3) Monday October 31, @11:50AMRe:Empty Threat by mranchovy (Score:1) Monday October 31, @12:03PM Re:Empty Threat (Score:5, Funny) by rbbs (665028) <robbieNOSPAMhugh ... INom minus autho> on Monday October 31, @12:10PM (#13916099) Or a record company wanting a piece of iPod revenue because they are using 'their music' on it...oh wait... [ Reply to This