DSL Amidst Phone Wars

DrewCapu writes "The SF Chronicle has an article which talks about the battles between SBC and AT&T & MCI over supposed unfair practices concerning DSL and switching phone companies. All sides have their own spin on it. Can't we all just get along? Things have been heating up ever since SBC got closer to offering LD in CA."

Comments

Control? Greed?

[phalse phace]

"If AT&T (or MCI) wanted to provide their new dial-tone customer with DSL, they could do so," said (SBC) spokesman John Britton. "In fact, one would think they would be eager to generate more revenue from the access line they just won over."

Couldn't the same be said of SBC? I mean, if SBC continued to provide DSL service to those customers, then they too would "generate more revenue" than if they were to just hand it over to AT&T or MCI. Is it greed? Or do they just want to control our means of communication? They can't have it both ways.

How About Permitting _Real_ Competition?

[John Hasler]

The whole idea of requiring phone company A to allow phone company B to sell "service" over phone company A's lines is ludicrous. Just let them both run their own lines.

Re:How About Permitting _Real_ Competition?

[goon america]

No, it's economics. The idea is that there is only a limited amount of space to run wires in -- so let a single regional provider do that. A virtually unlimited number of companies could provide LD service over those wires -- so let them compete to the death.

This is the idea that broke up AT&T. Whether it applies to DSL I have my doubts, but the regulation has withstood numerous challenges in court, at the agency level (FCC) and in Congress.

Clinging To The Old Economy?

[USC-MBA]

The article makes clear that SBC is using its position as sole provider of DSL services to the Norhtern California area to prevent customers from switching telephone services to rival companies.

While this tactic might seem counter-productive, serving mainly to make SBC look bad while rival services gear up to implement their own DSL offerings, it would be helpful to take a look at SBC's situation from the company's standpoint.

SBC's third quarter earning report show the company getting absolutely hammered on the earnings front, with revenues off 14 percent, down over a billion dollars from a year ago. This drop can be attributed to competition between phone services, and more importantly, the rise of alternative communications technology. While DSL subscribers are increasing steadily, the added inflow of dollars is being more than offset by the hemmorhaging in the phone services sector.

Thus it can be seen that big phone companies relying primarily on local and long distance phone service are seeing their traditional market being eroded away, and are panicking. Look for more tricks like the DSL service hostage stunt in the near future as lumbering Old Economy companies try anything to shore up their shrinking incomes.

Hopefully, companies like SBC will soon be willing to implement the kind of out-of-the-box thinking needed to restructure their companies for the (gradually...) emerging New Economy, and will leave these kind of lame tricks in the past. Until then, there's always cable.

SBC got rid of unbundled loops

[Anonymous Coward]

SBC got rid of unbundled loops just for this reason so you have to use their phone service to get ADSL.

with an unbundled network element SBC doesn't get to rape its customers. Only CLECS are allowed to purchase UNI circuits.

SBC is basically shoving there phone service down your throat wether you need it or not.

With a unbundled network element you can have a ADSL circuit plus use any phone company you want.

SBC first offered ADSL as a lineshare option or an unbundled loop but realized they could rape you by not offering that option anymore

SBC has been heel dragging at every turn...

[AtariDatacenter]

This is just one of their latest ploys. They're also trying to get rid of the Unbundled Network Elements that let their competitors offer local service in the first place. They're fighting tooth and nail against any competition at all.

What sickens me the most is how SBC uses the cloud of smoke to its advantage. In blazenly pays for commercials to be aired which says how they support competition in the telephone industry and they're working towards it. At the exact same time they're active sabotaging it. Remember that unfriendly, uncooperative monopoly of ten years ago? Same people. Never think for a moment that they are working in your interest. They are NOT.

Speaking of ludicrous...

[I Am The Owl]

Nobody's stopping them from running their own lines.

BUT... phone companies, like public utilities and most cable companies, are natural monopolies. That is, the initial investment required for buildout is so high that it more or less excludes competitors from building their own infrastructure. Requiring these phone companies to sell the usage of their lines to other companies that provide other services makes perfect sense in my mind. It opens up those services to more competition through the lower financial barrier to entry.

It all revolves around the definition...

[pctainto]

The whole argument revolves around how DSL is defined. To most of us Slashdotters (and consumers in general), we see DSL as a seperate entity from local phone service. This probably stems from dial-up being seperate from the local phone service. However, one can make the argument (and it seems SBC has) that DSL is a service add-on, therefore cannot by transferred when you switch local carriers. So, think of it as Caller ID... you lose caller id if you switch to a carrier that doesn't offere caller ID. The technology is there for SBC to still offer caller id to you, but, you don't have their local service anymore.