[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [interesting-people Home]
Subject: [IP] More on At SBC, It's All About "Scale and Scope"
Begin forwarded message: From: "Robert J. Berger" <rberger@ibd.com> Date: October 30, 2005 4:36:33 PM ESTTo: Dave Farber <dave@farber.net>, Dewayne Hendricks <dewayne@warpspeed.com>
Subject: More on At SBC, It's All About "Scale and Scope" The interview with SBC's Whitacre is truely frightening. He is talking like a monopolost with "absolute power" and with no fear that anyone will be able to stop him. To quote from the article: "It's about owning the assets that connect customers. The assets that probably can't be duplicated except maybe by the cable companies. We have that, Verizon has that, BellSouth (BLS ) has some of that. The cable companies have it. It's the numbers of customers you can get to. " He is saying that SBC, Verizon and Comcast control the choke-points between the Internet and the end user and that they will use it to keep out competitors. Then when asked: "How concerned are you about Internet upstarts like Google (GOOG ), MSN, Vonage, and others?" He replies that he will definately use this choke-point to collect tolls from content providers, and total ignores the fact he would be locking out content providers that aren't in a position to pay: "How do you think they're [content providers] 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!" Then add in Daniel Berninger's comment in the earlier mentioned article on the Cogent / Level 3 Peering spat (http://www.networkworld.com/edge/news/2005/102805-cogent-level3.html): "I think this [Cogent / Level 3 depeering] was a trial run," Berninger said. "I would not expect Level 3 to do something similar in the future, because I think that this was a bad experience for them in terms of the feedback they got, but it showed that these peering relationships are very fragile and very important. What happens when AT&T goes to SBC and MCI goes to Verizon?" And we see that we are indeed still in the "Empire Strikes Back" phase of the Telecom epic. We have yet to see the "Death Star" resurrected by SBC. Its coming soon and our regulators our out collecting from the lobbyists....
At SBC, It's All About "Scale and Scope"CEO Edward Whitacre talks about the AT&T Wireless acquisition and how he's moving to keep abreast of cable competitors <http://www.businessweek.com/@@n34h*IUQu7KtOwgA/magazine/content/ 05_45/b3958092.htm>
------------------------------------- To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [interesting-people Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC