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)
because the telcos usually have a monopoly on the lines in a given geographical area.
That's because SBC owns the lines you idiot. If other ISP's want to use it, they have to pay for it. This is just like when you go to Hertz to rent a car. If you want to use their car, you have to pay for it and Hertz sets the price.
While I'm not going to argue the point of the SBC pricing game, I will discuss your alleged claims of SBC being a monopoly. A monopoly is when a company is in business and consumers are forced to buy their products. Because this is true, they can set a price to whatever they want and people are forced to pay it (sounds like I'm actually backing your stupid claim doesn't it).
The part your missing is that SBC is not in the least-bit monopolistic because companies can come in to their area and open a competing business. The reason people don't is because of the economic block of high entry cost, not because SBC is playing with their prices.
What SBC is doing is called price discrimination. However, this is legal because they can charge anything they want to consumers and a different price to retailers and enforce that price difference (of course I'm assuming that the sub-ISPs actually have a contract with SBC for the price SBC actually charges, if SBC doesn't then they will certainly lose in court for attempting monopolistic tactics).