Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

California Orders SBC to Split Phone, DSL Service

Posted by timothy on from the so-goes-the-nation dept.

An anonymous reader points to this report at overclockersclub.com which begins "The great state of California has ruled that SBC Communications must sell local phone service and broadband service separately. This gives SBC customers the option to change local phone providers and/or choose any DSL company they wish."

4 of 302 comments (clear)

  1. I prefer one company to place my blame on. by garcia · · Score: 5, Informative

    The great state of California has ruled that SBC Communications must sell local phone service and broadband service separately. This gives SBC customers the option to change local phone providers and/or choose any DSL company they wish.

    I had this option when I used Verizon in Bowling Green, OH for DSL. It was nothing but a hassle compared to getting DSL+ISP through Epix in NEPA or cable through Roadrunner or Comcast/ATTBI. Any issue that would come up with the Internet connection would result in fingerpointing at either the ISP or the line provider.

    At least with cable there is only one person to blame. Slow speeds? It could be my computer but I doubt it. It's likely an issue w/the local lines or the ISP. I don't have to pay two separate bills. I don't have to call two separate companies when I want to cancel (signing up amazingly enough is dealt with through a central location in my experience).

    I find DSL to be nothing but an overly expensive hassle at least in the areas I have lived (I realize that out west they seem comparable to Cable, if not better). I despise Comcast and what they have to done to dominate the local market but at least I can hate one company w/o a doubt rather than having to play catch the monkey if you can w/DSL.

    A bit longer article is here at ZDnet from 6/14/2004.

    1. Re:I prefer one company to place my blame on. by niall2 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Up and until this past week I would have agreed with this. I have speakeasy DSL on a QWest phone line. Good service from the former. The later has a real bad track record.

      I started to get dropped carriers on my DSL starting two weeks ago. It would go out for some time and then come back. The worst kind of problem...intermitancy. The first time it went out they saw it out and started the dispatch of COVAD. When it came back we canceled. The second time I was out of town and couldn't do anything at home so we canceled (and then it came back). The third time it went out they dispatched COVAD and then it came back. COVAD came out anyway and fixed the problem (the dsl modem was dying). I had an old DSL modem that we put in its place and things came back up and signals were all strong.

      Now I know QWEST would have never done anything if I had a connection and it was their DSL service. And they certainly would not have let me use an old DSL modem I owned with thier service. Having lived in Texas I know Southwestern Bell, now SBC, would be in the same boat (along with any cable company I know of). They are all worried about keeping prices low and service to match (and keep it profitable). Being able to choose my DSL service allows me to get one that costs a little more ($10 a month plus more for static IP), but gets me the service I need for running a business from home.

      --
      Today is a gift. Save the receipt.
  2. Price Discrimination? by swordboy · · Score: 4, Informative

    Even though they are evil, SBC's DSL service is relatively affordable. It would be nice if California would also require that they not discriminate on the pricing side. This will be a moot law when SBC offers DSL for $150/month. It'll be cheaper to get the phone line and DSL bundle.

    --

    Life is the leading cause of death in America.
  3. Sounds good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    At first thought, it sounds like something of this magnitude (atleast in CA) might cause consumers to end up paying more in the long run, but I don't think that will be the case. I just cancelled my ADSL a month ago (but kept local phone service) through SBC because another company just finished running fiber to my neighborhood (offering phone, television, and internet). I think once the DSL side of SBC is required to compete on fair grounds with everyone, they will not only introduce new services (maybe through something OTHER than copper?), but I think it will give companies - not only DSL competition - but other service providers a fair chance to compete.

    PS - Company I am getting fiber through is Surewest Broadband. They do have bandwidth caps, but they are not enforced very stricly, and they actually post what their monthly limits are. When you get 10Mbps both ways, you have to expect this. But with the Television service as well as Internet, Surewest so far has been great, and I am glad I made the switch from SBC Internet (and Comcast for television).