Slashdot Mirror
SBC Hit with Antitrust Lawsuit
mrtaco01 writes "Four Internet service providers have filed an antitrust suit against SBC Communications, alleging that the Baby Bell unfairly inflated wholesale prices for high-speed Internet access."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Good. This will mean they should have less time for suing people using frames in websites, erm, I mean "Structured Document Viewer".
Just two months ago, with the addition of the first 3rd party DSL provider, SBC dropped their price to $29.95/mo (which I was able to sign up for).
Granted, this wasn't due solely to the entrance of this 3rd party, but also high competition between Time Warner, the local cable modem supplier. The dramatic decrease in the pricing though just goes to show how good competition is for the consumer.
The problem is that SBC owns the lines going to your house. SBC also sells DSL access. So they open it up to everyone like they are legally supposed to, but then start jacking up the prices so all the other DSL businesses go under. This leaves SBC as the only DSL provider in your area. Prices and restrictions on users go up. Not good for the public that has to pay more money for less service. This type of behavior crowds out good ISPs like Speakeasy.
This is also known as 'bait and switch'...
What you aren't reading is that SBC conned all these ISPs into jumping on the DSL bandwagon, and signing up thousands of DSL subscribers...
After they did all the leg work, SBC then lowered the price they offer the public. Hence making it too expensive for the ISPs to compete with SBC (since they still are paying the old rate, they actually pay MORE for 'wholesale' DSL access then SBC is selling to the public for)
Part of the problem with DSL is that the OWNER of the copper last mile has all the advantage. Even though you may be buying DSL Internet from any one of a half dozen ISPs, they ALL rely on SBC to get that last mile. Hence, they have a monopoly.
The courts allowed them have this monopoly, on the understanding that access was fairly given to competitors to 'resell' those facilities at a fair price.
Droping your retail price below your wholesale price doesn't seem very fair, and since it was the FCC that mandated this (ie, they made it a law), that is why it is ilegal.
I don't know about SBC's area, but for anyone else stuck in Qwest's area (I feel for you, really) you can already pick from multiple ISPs. Qwest has their ISP list so you can see who's available. I have unlimited 640k/256k access for $19.95 a month from these guys.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/25/technology/25DSL .html
More articles:h ronicle/archive/2003/07/25/BU143220.DTL&type=busin ess
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c
From which quotes: "... SBC's monthly wholesale fees were between $32.50 and $39 per subscriber. At that price, he said, his clients were unable to compete against SBC when the additional cost of Internet service and modems is factored in."
http://www.bayarea.com/mld/cctimes/business/638193 1.htm
http://www.sanmateocountytimes.com/Stories/0,1413, 87~11271~1532530,00.html
It's high time DSL prices fell so that I can get my $15/month - unlimited download - dedicated IP - T1!!! (then hook an 801 router and be peddling th e bandwidth to the neighbors... )
Create music
It could mean that your installed DSL line could have several different choices of ISP's instead of just the ISP officially supported by the telephone company
First of all, this is already the case. In my last apartment, I had dsl, and when I was shopping around, I must've browsed through twenty different ISP's. I originally tried to go with Speakeasy, which was just getting rolling, but as they didn't have a Chicago POP at the time, and I'm in Michigan... It caused a few problems having my gateway in Seattle. (minimum ping to anywhere of 150) In the end I went with Telocity, which later became DirectTV DSL, and was quite happy with the service. I had 1 Mbit down and 384 Kbit up; enough to run simple services such as my webserver, an ftp server, and ssh.
which will lead to price competition and eventually monthly pricing more akin to dial-up pricing (e.g., US$20 to US$22 per month unlimited access)
Secondly, this is highly unlikely, at least not anytime soon. I would guess (and it is just a guess, IMHO, disclaimer, etc, etc.) that most DSL ISP's are already operating at a loss, and still paying for the infrastructure they had to setup. Until that overhead goes away for the company, they can't in good faith to their shareholders drop their prices. As it is, I don't feel broadband prices are too out of line; I paid $55/mo for that dsl connection, and $60/mo for my cable right now. While this may be a bit much for casual users, I definitely get my money's worth.
Would you folks stop calling it a DSL Line?
Examples of proper use: I have DSL; They want a Digital Subscriber Line; etc.
While you're at it can you cut out calling ATMs "ATM Machines" and PINs "PIN Numbers"?
Thank you,
Drive Through
That and keep in mind that Bell was originally granted a monopoly on the phone system and it's building was subsidized by your tax dollars.
DSL is one of two monopolies that can provide Broadband in populus areas. CableModem would be the alternative.
Both are still too expensive, but considering that the prices for each are regulated, you have to get the regulators to recognize that fact, and get them to force the prices down.
For rural areas, there is really only one method of getting anything like broadband service, and that is Sat service. Unfortunately there is a higher up front instalation cost, and monthly costs are at least as high as dsl or cable modems. On top of that the equipment uses a modified network stack that in most cases requires a Windows based PC to communicate. (Yes there are exceptions, especially if you are willing to spend a couple hundred more for the install.)
Now if you are willing to do a co-op with the rest of the people on your block, you could get a T1 or DS3 brought in, and use WiFi to share the connection with other people on the block. Personally I say good luck, but it might be feasable.
-Rusty
You never know...
-Craig
Corollary to Clarke's Third Law: Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
And exactly how is this SBC's fault that you can't get the service you want.
Come on, you talk about your apartment complex not having a certain service (irrelevant, don't bitch to me)
SBC specifically negotiated an agreement whereby they block competing services, which are otherwise available in my area. This is both their fault and relevant.
Then don't buy it [SBC DSL].
I didn't. But you already knew that, from the rest of my post.
the lines belong to SBC. If they don't want to sell them to someone they don't have to. However, chances are it is because of financials. SBC said they wanted to charge so much and Speakeasy said no (again, not SBC's problem)
They do, in fact, have to sell them, because otherwise they run afoul of monopoly laws. SBC charges too much for use of their lines, again, blocking competition. This makes them a de facto monopoly, which is not simply a dull game with dice, real estate, and Get Out of Jail Free cards, but also an illegal market practice.
It is a load of duplicitous crap for SBC to say, "we offered our lines but they wouldn't pay" when SBC knows it is charging too much for any other company to turn a profit. It's analogous to offering someone a ride, but driving too fast for them to get in the car, then saying it's their fault they didn't run fast enough.
(It may also get SBC in trouble with the whole Common Carrier thing, but I don't want to look it up and you certainly don't care.)
In conclusion, if you can't even be arsed to sign your trolls, piss off.
-Carolyn
Like Daddy always said: if you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit.
Ya, he missed on the name. Its called Predatory Pricing, and it tends to get companies in trouble. Especially when that company has a monopoly. Wrong name or not though, he has a point. If a company has a monopoly and then uses that position to drive out all competition by lowering prices below their cost, this is a bad thing, and illegal.
Necessity is the mother of invention.
Laziness is the father.
How about because they allow you to do whatever you want? [in addition to above poster]
At least in this area, SBC does not allow "odd" protocols such as GRE [required for PPTP connections] and in certain locations they won't even let you connect to an smtp server that isn't theirs.
Furthermore, in my experience with PacBell [before the SBC buyout] and SpeakEasy at the same location and same service [1.5/384 adsl] I found that SpeakEasy provided a much better service. Much less downtime, none of which was unannounced. Much better average response time to the internet, especially to the west coast [PacBell routed everything through SF and then back down the peninsula again...] And much better bandwidth on average.
Reliability: better.
Customer Service: WAY better.
Speed: better.
Bandwidth: better.
I mean what other metrics do you want?
[quote]
What you aren't reading is that SBC conned all these ISPs into jumping on the DSL bandwagon, and signing up thousands of DSL subscribers...
After they did all the leg work, SBC then lowered the price they offer the public. Hence making it too expensive for the ISPs to compete with SBC (since they still are paying the old rate, they actually pay MORE for 'wholesale' DSL access then SBC is selling to the public for)
[/quote]
The bold part is the kicker. If SBC lowers the montly rate for ADSL service, our monthly SBC bill per ADSL line we resell stayles the same - we don't get the same price cut! There is no way we can compete with that. We are charged the "wholesale" rate of $39.99 per month per ADSL line. We are charged $125 per CPE (equipment shipped to customer). SBC charges its ADSL customers $25/month for service, with no equipment charges. How can we compete with that? Our "wholesale" rate is almost double what SBC customers are being charged! In order to break even we have to charge $60/month and have a two year service agreement to recover the cost of the CPE. There is no way this can be called "fair competition".
"Jesus saves, but everyone else in a 10 foot radius takes full damage from the fireball."
SBC recently sponsored a bill in the Nevada Congress which made it legal for them to do this within the state. SB 400 (I think is the number) was sponsored by SBC and is an attempt to make it legal for SBC to charge whatever they want when dealing with 3rd party ISPs. I was in the car with a few colleagues Wednesday and one of them got a call from some of his clients who went through a 3rd party DSL service to say that their entire internet connection had been shut down because SBC cut the connection to the ISP.
Its not only monopolistic pricing, they are now, at least in Nevada (and I think I heard that Indiana or Illinois had a similar measure passed) absolved from even offering the lines to 3rd parties. We're trying to start a grassroots counter-attack in the Reno area, but its going to be a long fight for certain.
"But that's just my opinion, I could be wrong" - Dennis Miller
IIRC, back when I was still comparing DSL providers I heard that one can't get DSL in SBC territory from anyone without having an SBC landline account. Even though I'd just as soon ditch my home number entirely I can't without SBC blocking the line. There's no technical reason for this to be so. Speakeasy does after all pay SBC's rent after I've paid Speakeasy.