Slashdot Mirror
Baby Bells Open to Antitrust Lawsuits
jobugeek writes "A New York appeals court has opened up the abililty for consumers to sue the Baby Bells for antitrust violations. The question now is, will anyone try to."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Right now! I got the RIAA's, Microsoft's and O.J.'s lawyers. Should be interesting.
Well, it looks like Verizon's finally open to being sued for monopolistic practices.
:]
Lawyers to Verizon: "Can you hear us now? Good..."
The question now is, will anyone try to.
Uh yah,
What, you think the judge was bored one day and decided to open this up?
This decision is the fruit of legal action brought forth by the very people who will be suing.
I know I'm going to hell, I'm just trying to get good seats.
Have you noticed that through out recent years a darker force has risen from the clouds of the baby bells and engulfed the powers that feed your phone lines? Verizon which was nothing a few years ago, controlls almost all phone lines now, not only that, they have given full control to the bigger-powers-that-be to record and monitor all your phone conversations (btw they get paid for this -- so you do live in a free country and you are paying them to record you talking with friends and family -- and it's for your own safty).
.. the like of which we've not seen since the days of ATT monopoly (Then again that might be a good thing (tm). But the issue here I point out is the fact tht Verizon also controls DSL lines. They are the *ONLY* reason why DSL is not deployed in mass here in the US. They are the only ones milking every single mom&pop DSL provider by imposing unwanted tarrifs on the use of their lines.
Verizon is evil and vile, it would bring a stangation to American land lines
Verizon is also after your money. They have been raising phone rates constatly for the past 2 years at the rate of 0.2 cents per month. Please collect all your bills and do the math. This means eventually they'd be charing you a lot more than what you were playing with non-verizon.
Verizon needs to be dismantled. This would be good for you, for the DSL ppl, for the Internet providers and phone sex in general. Please lobby against this vile corporation. They are akin to Microsoft and Clearchannel (story for another day).
Lord Ranamaari
Does this mean that when they finally split Microsoft up, we can then sue the component parts for antitrust violations, too? And then sue the bits of them? Whoopee!
Anyone fancy a game of Microsoft Pang?
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
held liable for lying to customers about how much their services really cost. Phone companies disgust me, and every single one I have dealt with over the past 8 years as lied through their teeth. Ever wonder why basic phone service costs you $40/month when they advertise $15? Or when they promise you 10 cents/min for a low $5 monthly fee, but when you get the bill you see that 10 cents only applies to interstate calls. So not only did you get screwed out of $5, you also get charged 25 cents a minute to call your mother...
I tried to call some lawyers involved in a class-action anti-trust law suit against the phone company, but their phone was disconnected....
Seems it was all just smoke and mirrors....
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
I mean, seriously. MS has been on trial for so long now I barely remember when it started. IBM has been tried at least once, and I doubt that the Baby Bells will do any worse than those two.
Let's save our legal money for things like national ID cards, and people who wear hushpuppies.
(Well, I was just kidding about the hushpuppies)
(I think. . .)
-WS
An operating system should be like a light switch... simple, effective, easy to use, and designed for everyone.
While ending AT&T's monopoly on phone service in the 80's has been great for the telecom industry, there is certainly a lot to be desired. What I'm wondering is if the ability to sue the Baby Bells will end up being a vehicle to change the fundamental way they operate or if it will just be a means for class-action lawyers to pad their pockets and their client's pockets.
If you look at a lot of the third party class-action antitrust suits coming against Microsoft right now, many of them are just after cash. If people sue the Baby Bell's for cash the only thing we will get are worse service and bankrupt phone companies...Can you imagine the service getting any worse?
I've been involved in only one of those, and I got a nice, shiny five dollar check for my efforts. The class action suit I was involved in invloved a company hiking finance charges. I was overcharged financing on an item to the tune of $150. $5 is less than $150.
So, are these lawsuits meant as compensation to the consumer, a conduit for a lawyer's SUV fund, or as punishment to the defendant?
A winner is you!
In my area, SBC will shut you down fast if they find that
you're running your own DSL connection on a dry-copper
pair (they don't like the fact that you're getting 1.5-2+ Mbs
and only paying about $20 per month).
I wonder if this decision (if it stands) will allow us to pursue
legal action against the Baby Bells? If it did, and the Bells
allowed Homebrew DSL, you'd see the fastest rollout of broadband ever!
Anyone up for a class action suit here?
Damn! I'm fine with my local, but I really want to sue Verizon.
Not for their service or anything like that. I just hate the "Can you hear me now? Good," guy.
That it took 3 weeks for SBC to install a simple "run-of-the-mill" phoneline in my apartment (hell - it was already installed - all they had to do was turn it on!) - I could see suing them.
We went 3 weeks without any way to contact emergency services whatsoever! That is piss poor.
And the only reason they can get away with it is that they have a monopoly in our area - so what the fuck are we supposed to do about it?
$0.02
Derek
So the Baby Bells should know about and fear anti-trust consequinces better than most other companies. It is where they were born.
There is nothing so silly as other peoples traditions, and nothing so sacred as our own.
Which will cause Qwest to declare bancruptcy first:
poor management or lawsuits?
My money is on management. Lawsuits take forever to have an impact.
OK, I realize I'm (kind of) defending the phone company, but often what's broken isn't the phone company rates but the tarrif structure and process regulators setup.
The first time I asked for a copy of my office's phone account info from the phone company -- several POTS lines, a couple of ISDN BRIs, an ISDN PRI and five DSS trunks -- I expected a page or two detailing the billing for the lines and maybe a page or two for some extras (DID blocks, etc). Naive me, I got what amounted to over *50* pages of billing information, often for each trunk member there were multiple entries for small charges of around $.50 each. I discovered why our phone system maintenance vendor employs a full-time ex-Qwest employee to decipher these things.
Anyway, the telcos deserve a rap on the knuckles for advertising just their tarrif rates, when they know that's not what people are going to be writing checks for. But the regulators and regulatory processes *also* deserve a (bigger) rap on the knuckles for making telephone billing so overly complicated; many of the charges on a phone bill are multi-layer (fed, state, local) taxes and fees.
It also doesn't help that what most non-rural customers pay for phone services isn't what it costs to deliver those services; cross-subsidies between service types further complicate simple pricing. Again thank the regulators.
It'd be nice if one day you could order telecomms services that had a price that you actually paid and could understand instead of a sea of regulutory nonsense.
Yes...
In reality, it's supposed to be the first and last. However, even lawyers deserve to be paid something. So all you're doing is arguing over the fee.
On one hand, $5 IS significantly smaller than $150. On the other hand, without the lawyer and his quick thinking you would have had $0 and the company would have seen NO consequences. All-in-all, I'd say you got a pretty good payday for filling out a form and mailing it in.
That is all.
The Baby Bells have nothing to fear. As Microsoft has demonstrated, even the mightiest case (such as the Clinton DOJ had) can be reduced to nothing by delaying tactics and tons of cash.
And the current DOJ has a philosophical bent against antitrust laws. The top boys don't believe in those laws. And as the past year demonstrated, even with a case already won, they will let it peter out without comment. Oh, who are we kidding, it was Bush's decision.
There is no chance that the current DOJ will prosecute antitrust cases. They have other priorities, such as medical-marijuana laws and tapping the Internet. This is not a troll, simply the truth. The Bush admin will not fight monopolies because it doesn't believe they should be regulated.
And as for the courts, eventually the politically canny people in the White House will break the logjam on the hyperconservative, Chicago School federal judge appointments, and even if a future administration cares to pursue an antitrust case, it will face a solid wall of Reagan/Bush/Bush II appointees who will shoot them down with glee.
As for greedy lawyers in private cases, I just don't get it. If the Feds can't or won't, and no private individual could possibly hope to confront billions of dollars worth of legal opposition, what other possibility for redress of monopolistic practices would be left if the private lawyers weren't trying to profit from class action suits? If you hate lawyers more than the utterly powerful corporations (who are nothing more than lawyers themselves, don't forget!), then who the hell can stop the juggernaut? Let the lawyers make their millions if our executive, legislative, and judicial branches are philosophically incapable of doing their jobs to protect the citizens of the U.S. from out-of-control corporate lords.
Will this apply outside of the telecom industry? Some of my favorite oranizations, RIAA, MPAA, and M$ could probably all be open to lawsuits if this ruling is as broad as I hope it is.
BlackGriffen
You need the TeleZapper !! Does anyone here own a TeleZapper? Does this thing actually work? I can imagine the telemarketing companies devising a counter-attack soon..
The TeleZapper uses the technology of telemarketers' automatic dialing equipment against them. When you or your answering machine picks up a call, the TeleZapper emits a special tone that "fools" the computer into thinking your number is disconnected. Instead of connecting you to a salesperson, the computer stores your number as diconnected in it's database. Over time, as your number is removed from more and more databases, you'll see a dramatic decrease in the number of annoying telemarketing calls you receive.
cpeterso
Can Bellsouth leave my DSL on if I cancel my land-line service? I'm paying $32 per month on a line I use maybe twice a month. I'd just as well disconnect it and get a cellphone, but I don't want to lose DSL.
I know there's legislation preventing cable companies from tying service. How does this apply to telcos? Anyone with Bellsouth have any experience here?
"Mod, mod, mod...and another troll bites the dust."
I'm often reminded that behind every sleezebag lawyer there is a sleezebag client. While that's true in many court cases, it is not the case with class action suits. From what I've read you're given the choice of participating or waiving your rights to sue. It doesn's seem like much of a choice to me.
I'm convinced they're a conduit for passing money to lawyers while eliminating the public's ability to recover actual damages. Here are some examples:
I was involved in a suit against B of A in California. They were overcharging on something for home loans. While I have no idea how much the total settlement was for, I still have my check for $0.23. (yes, 23 cents)
I just got my check for NFL Sunday ticket's suit resolution. It seems two bar owners sued because they coulen't get single games - just the season package. I think the settlement was just under $3.5 million. The lawyers got a third, the two bar owners got $1,000 each (this is not a typo), and I received $32 and change although I have yet to realize that I was injured.
In some cases you don't get anything. I think Sears settled with a service lawsuit (again in CA) years ago where the lawyers got serious cash and everyone else got discount coupons on future Sears work. Let's see, they screwed me that last time they worked on my car. I'll feel better when they screw me this time at a discount!
There are numerous examples of class action suits putting good companies with good products out of business (think Silicon breast implants). No proof that there's any abnormal danger but the lawsuits have killed and industry and prevented good products from coming to market.
While there is limited good from these types of lawsuits (asbestos comes to mind) one questions if there isn't a better way. Most of these lawsuits border on the frivolous and the injured parties, if they are in fact even injured as in my two examples, get next to nothing. But with lawyers as the prime beneficiaries and lawyers as the primary law makers, I don't see this changing during my life time.
This actually might be a good thing in terms of being able to get an alternate ISP over DSL. As it stands now, the thick-headed a-holes at the FCC think broadband competition is cable vs. DSL. But if I get DSL, I'm most likely stuck with Verizon.net. Though right now I've got Covad/Speakeasy (and they rock), the recent ruling with the FCC means that they can be shut off by Verizon quite quickly if Verizon wants to play that game (and I'm pretty sure they do). So then I'm stuck with crappy ATTBI cable with no alternate ISP or Verizon DSL. Hell, I'd even be willing to pay Verizon some small loop charge (say $30/month) if I could pick my own ISP (with an additional charge). As long as I don't have Verizon's crappy ISP service (which no doubt matches their phone service).
So I guess what I'm saying is that yes, individuals may very well take this action as a good thing and start suing the RBOCs for opening up their DSL to other ISPs (even if we have to use the RBOCs for just the local loop). This also might be a good thing for those looking to get into opening up cable lines to alternate ISPs.
It's just a thought (but right now I'm suffering from sleep deprivation, so it might be a dream).
Viva the government, he'll sue anyone, except the RIAA
Maybe this will help my Covad stock. I'd love to see Cavad haul them into court.
-Pete
Soccer Goal Plans
If you have problem with your phone carrier (such as a baby bell) giving you poor service, taking a month to install a phone line, etc...There are laws you prolly don't know about that are set by your state's government about how soon the phone company must give you service after you make the request for the service (such as adding a new phone line).
When you have problems with the phone company, look up in your phone book under the state government listings for the Public Service Commission or the Public Utilities Commission. Call them and then ask for the phone number to their complaints line. Then call the complaints line. You will speak to someone that has and will contact people higher up in the phone company's service and management departments that will get your service requests done PROMPTLY. If you make a request for service and the phone company doesn't provide it within a reasonable amount of time, the PSC or PUC WILL fine the phone company for violating state laws by not providing you service within a reasonable amount of time according to the laws in your state.
For example, my mom bought a new house. She called the phone company routinely for a month straight. Bellsouth kept saying there were no more available lines in her area and they would have to engineer a solution and get back with her. After putting up with this for a month she finally called the PSC and told them what was going on. The next day she had a working phone line.
Does the name Pavlov ring a bell?
Judging from the feedback on this article, if only you could do that regarding their pricing schemes .. ;)
"Old man yells at systemd"
Arent the "baby Bells" still considered regulated monopolies? How can they be sued for being in the condition that the federal government left them?
Can You Say Linux? I Knew That You Could.
Rolling your own DSL over a dry copper line for $45 a month
The awakening of the Internet happened for many reasons, but one of the more significant reasons was because it provided tens of thousands of entrepenuers the opportunity to start thier own ISP. Small ISP's began to crop up everywhere, especially where larger providers wouldn't provide service.
Doesn't DSL have to connect to the main switch to work?
Or does it??? Roll your own DSL
I read this article one year ago and I was shocked. Cringely had explained that DSL doesn't need to go through the Baby Bells to work. As a matter of fact, the types of lines to make this possible have been available for years. They're called dry-copper lines and they're used by alarm companies monitor security systems, but they could also be used for DSL.
The difference between dry copper lines and regular phone lines is that dry copper lines never connect to the switch, but that doesn't matter for DSL. It's like P2P phone service, but with one line going from you home directly to your neighbors.
If only the Baby Bells would sell dry copper lines
By law the Baby Bells are required to specific services at specific prices, primarily because they are entrusted with the public's communicatiosn infrastructure. The truth is: Most baby bells will sell you a dry copper line for about $15-$45 a month. They may lie to you and say it doesn't exists, but even if you get it, it doesn't mean it will work. All they are required to do is sell you a dry copper line that completes a circuit. There's nothing preventing them from selling you a noisy dry copper line, which is especially bad for DSL.
What would have happened if the Baby Bells were required to sell clear dry copper lines?
My guess is as good as yours, but I know if I was an ISP. I would have been out there hawking cheap DSL in areas the Baby Bells were ignoring. I wonder how many people would have been doing the same thing? Would broadband have been a little more ubiquitous by now?
"Communism is like having one [local] phone company " - Lenny Bruce
Ok, since we are part of Slashdot we naturally compare this to Microsoft, but it's worse.
Almost everyone in the US pays for phone service. Strangly, I have more choice for my OS than I do for our phone service. Besides, many people still don't have computers, but they have phones.
I pay for an MS OS license via a PC seller once (if ever). Since they buy in volume, its maybe 30 bucks.
I pay more to my phone company each month.
So, to the question, will anyone bother to sue? I hope so.
this is not a sig
Comment removed based on user account deletion
*IF* (Big IF) you can get a dry pair connecting between your house and your ISP (given you're 12,000 ft from your ISP), and you can *ACTUALLY* get your ISP to agree on this arrangement, then you've solved a huge part of the problem.
As far as equipment is concerned, I couldn't help you. I gathered from his article that standard equipment will more or less do maybe with some help of other equipment.
My point was: If the Telcos were required to sell dry copper pairs at a minimum quality, then you might have a chance and you would probably find a lot more information as what do to.
"Communism is like having one [local] phone company " - Lenny Bruce
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I have been thinking exactly this for some time. It's so ridiculous and frustrating. There ought to be a better way.
What can we consumers do? File a class action suit against these lawyers? Then we'd probably have to sue those lawyers, and so on, until we had mountains of $0.15 checks, and lots of lawyers who had made themselves plaques on the wall to brag about all the money they had sucked out of the system. It's ridiculous.
I like Bill Shakespeare's words: "First thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."
Donate background CPU time to fight cancer.