"How concerned are you about Internet upstarts like Google, 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! or Vonage or anybody to expect to use these pipes [for] free is nuts! "
Why should they be allowed to use "your" pipes, Mr. Whitacre? Because as an SBC customer I've already paid you for that use, both upstream and downstream. Also, as an SBC customer I pay for INTERNET access - not that portion of the Internet that doesn't interfere with your antiquated business model.
Mr. Whitacre wants to charge both me and whoever I connect to for the same bandwidth, Failing that, he wants to block access to services so he doesn't have to compete. He seems to think he can get away with this outrageousness because only DSL and cable can provide broadband access. Apparently he hasn't heard of WiMax.
To paraphrase, "for a Google or Yahoo! or Vonage or anybody to pay to provide service to SBC customers who have already paid for the bandwidth once is nuts!" No wonder Google is looking into WiFi and buying dark fiber. Really, how clueless can he be? Access is the only thing they have to sell - if they don't provide FULL access they are doomed. Do they really WANT Google to compete with them for access? Is there any doubt how that would come out?
No comments:
Post a Comment