before reading my rant here.)
Wow - did some really talented spin doctors get a hold of this or what?
It almost sounds reasonable - until you pull out some light to examine
the situation and you remember "Oh Yeah - all those on-line businesses
already pay thousands, for some hundreds of thousands if not more,
EACH AND EVERY BLOODY MONTH for THEIR side of the connection.
What's the matter AT&T (Formerly SBC, formerly PacBell, formerly Nevada Bell
formerly At&T) and BellSouth (formerly....you know, AT&T) and Verizon (also formerly..
but I repeat myself)?
All these telcos have at their heart copper wire and microwave relay stations that
were paid for 30 years ago! The newer equipment has been in the process of being
installed only over the past 10-15 years. (Most of it involves integrated circuit technology that costs
1-3% of the old mechanical switches and such. Or fiber optics that deliver a 1000 times more bang for the buck).
The telcos are of course maximizing their write offs expensing everything they can so have
artificially created "lower earnings," so they are whining to stockholders - "We can't pay
you high dividends." while now also whining to the press "It's all the fault of those horrible
internet companies like Google."
Of course they are also conveniently forgetting to mention that without the new additional
revenues they are ALREADY RECEIVING from those companies as well as the very existence
of those same businesses - their revenues really would be in the toilet.
Why? Well for one example: How about wireless companies like Cingular, oh that's right, that used to be AT&T,
Verizon. oh - that used to be AT&T too, well there's always Sprint - no that was originally
Brown Telephone Co, which had an agreement with AT&T to go to rural areas where
AT&T decided there wasn't enough money. (Thank heaven's for competition.... oh yeah
that right, they were mostly a regulated monopoly until Judge Green split them up.
Except... don't most states still have that pesky little entity called the PUC - Public Utilities
Commission - that regulates how much profit a telco can make? Notice there are no
controls over expenses, capital purchases or executive bonuses - just "profit".
So if a Verizon or whomever, created this artificial surcharge to Google et al, obviously
they have to spend a bunch of that money to keep the profits down to where the PUC
says they must be.
On Wed, 2006-02-08 at 07:09 -0800, David Dehls wrote:
Hi Dennis, It's not just Verizon. From todays RGJ: > Phone, cable face off with Google over Internet access > ASSOCIATED PRESS ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > February 8, 2006 > > > WASHINGTON -- Internet giant Google said Tuesday that the wide variety > of Web sites might shrink if broadband providers like AT&T start > charging companies for premium access to high-speed networks. > > The Bell companies promised members of the Senate Commerce Committee > that they have no plans to block Internet services. Lawmakers are > considering legislation to guarantee consumers open access to the > Internet -- a notion those in the industry refer to as "net neutrality." > > AT&T Inc. and BellSouth Corp. in particular have suggested charging > Internet services such as Google Inc., Yahoo Inc. and Vonage Holdings > Corp. for the high-quality delivery of their content over the phone > companies' networks. The phone companies say they're investing > billions of dollars upgrading their broadband networks and should be > able to recoup that cost. > > "The promise of the next-generation Internet is dependent upon there > being investment in next-generation networks," said Walter McCormick, > president and chief executive of the United States Telecom > Association, a trade association for the Bells and others. "If you're > going to expand these networks, how are you going to earn a return on > that investment?" > > Critics worry the Bells could discriminate against certain Internet > companies and limit what consumers see when they go online. > > For example, they say, a tiered service would allow Verizon and AT&T > to give priority to Yahoo's search engine over Google's. > > -- leaving consumers with long wait times to access Google services. > Smaller companies could be run out of business, they argue. > > "Promoting an open and accessible Internet is critical for consumers," > Google Vice President Vinton Cerf -- a man widely regarded as one of > the fathers of the Internet -- said in his testimony. > > Cerf and Vonage Chairman Jeffrey Citron advocated legislation that > keep phone or cable companies from blocking access or discriminating > against certain Internet companies. The main trade associations for > the phone and cable companies argued against legislation, saying it's > not needed because they have no intention of impeding access to the > Internet. > > Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., said consumers already pay broadband > providers for access to the Internet and questioned the need for > additional charges. > > "It is not a free lunch for any one of these content providers," > Dorgan said. "Those lines and that access is being paid for by the > consumer." > > Republicans urged an approach that also recognizes the money being > spent by broadband providers to upgrade their facilities to offer more > services at faster speeds. > > "You do deserve a return on your investment," Sen. John Ensign, > R-Nev., said. "If we can't give them a return on their investment, > Wall Street is not going to loan them the money to do this. David Dennis Bagley wrote: > I read the article that was in the Washington Post listing the the > vapid spoutings of John Thorne from Verizon > and frankly it kind of ticked me off to the point I wrote to our two > senators as well as our congressman from Nevada > > Below is the text of the email I sent along with the link to the > primary article on Verizon. > > If you are of a similar opinion - I urge you to also contact your > Representatives and Senators > and let them know what you think about these packets of lies and > Verizon's blatant attempt > at thievery. > > Dennis > > > > As per an article in the Washington post > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/06/AR2006020601624.html > as well as several other publications, it appears the telcos, with > Verizon leading the mob, are poised to attempt to really rip off the > American Public. > > Verizon's John Thorne is holding forth with the bald face lie that > companies such as Google are getting what he calls "a free ride." and > proposes to charge extra fees to such companies. > > Google and all other internet based companies already pay and pay > handsomely for access to the internet. How on earth does that > constitute a free ride? > > We, meaning all users of the internet, must pay for our side of the > access and so do all those businesses. If it were not for those > businesses, most individuals would have no reason to be on the > internet for anything more than messages! > > Verizon is attempting to create an artificial financial bottleneck > that will benefit no one but Verizon and could well stifle the > domestic economic virtues of internet based commerce. > > Please please do what ever you can to prevent this injustice before > serious damage is done. > > Thank you > > Sincerly > > > Dennis R Bagley
-- "One man's religion is another man's belly laugh." Robert A Heinlein |
_______________________________________________ RLUG mailing list [email protected] http://lists.rlug.org/mailman/listinfo/rlug
