Slashdot Log In
California Orders SBC to Split Phone, DSL Service
Posted by
timothy
on Wed Jun 16, 2004 12:00 PM
from the so-goes-the-nation dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Spiffy... (Score:2, Insightful)
How to get around this (Score:5, Interesting)
They sign contracts with new apartment complexes, new housing developers, even new business centers and offer them a package deal. The providers come out and install only their equipment, phone lines, cable (very cheaply, or even free I might add) and that is the ONLY service you can sign up for. Of course the developers and landlords will make a profit on the customers that sign up. Plus the customer sometimes does get a savings when compared to the cost of each package had you had a choice in the matter. Want COX Cable, but Qwest telephone? Sorry... But we only offer Qwest here. This is more prevalent in newer apartment complexes.
I prefer one company to place my blame on. (Score:5, Informative)
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 [com.com] at ZDnet from 6/14/2004.
Re:I prefer one company to place my blame on. (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Parent
Re:I prefer one company to place my blame on. (Score:3, Interesting)
No matter what when there are two seperate companies controlling the fate of your connections reliability or speed you will never get an honest answer from either.
Verizon was overselling bandwith in Bowling Green. Supposedly, for 768/128k DSL, they were to be using one rack per T1 at the DSLAM. Instead of doing that they were using 1
Thanks (Score:5, Funny)
Go Pistons.
Re:Thanks (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Price Discrimination? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Price Discrimination? (Score:2)
Re:Price Discrimination? (Score:2)
Re:Price Discrimination? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Price Discrimination? (Score:5, Interesting)
What's so evil about SBC? Should I pay charter cable the same price for half the service (768k down)? It's a free market. I can choose another provider if I want, and I choose not too.
If there's others that don't have a choice - look at at Directway, Sprint Vision, etc. Oh wait thise are even more expensive.
Parent
This is a good idea (Score:4, Funny)
Re:This is a good idea (Score:2, Insightful)
Great News (Score:5, Interesting)
Finally (Score:2, Informative)
That said, I'm never giving SBC a dime of my money again if I can help it.
Re:Finally (Score:3, Informative)
Note that having "dial tone" is something of a misnomer nowadays. Most places will have dial tone whether you have a phone line hooked up there or not. It'll only call 911/other emergency numbers and the local phone companies (so you can call to get service), but it'll have tone.
DSL will work without tone though. All that's needed is a short enough w
It wasn't so long ago... (Score:5, Insightful)
Is This Something New? (Score:2, Insightful)
Bell South - my new hero!!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
What I've always wondered... (Score:4, Interesting)
I disconnected my phone and DSL when I moved recently, and the DSL stayed up after they had transferred the phone line. Something like this just makes me curious. Not that I'd want to disconnect my land line in favour of one of those cancer inducing cell phones, but you know...
Re:What I've always wondered... (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Speakeasy? (Score:2, Redundant)
But I like my bundle (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:But I like my bundle (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, but I've been asking for this for literally YEARS. I don't need or want a land-line voice connection. The only people who call me on it are f*cking telemarketers from SBC trying to sell my their long-distance service, which I also don't need or want. Even my parents have recognized that they should call my cell phone if they want to talk to me. I haven't answered my land line phone in at least the last six months.
You may like your bundle, but all I want from SBC is DSL for $25/month, without the extra $10 for phone service that I don't use and then additional $10 in taxes and fees that are charged on top of that phone service I don't use.
If it's true, this will immediately save me $250 or more every year.
Parent
Sounds good (Score:5, Informative)
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).
Now if they would do the same to cable (Score:3, Interesting)
Nice ruling, but it won't matter (Score:5, Interesting)
I know this first hand from being in the middle of a he-said-she-said argument between Covad and SBC, with me and Speakeasy in the middle. I tried really hard to make it work, since I genuinely *like* Speakeasy and their customer support so much.
Now I use Comcast internet service. I'm no fan of our local cable monopoly, but they do run a cheap, fast pipe to my house. Even when its clogged up w/ traffic, its twice as fast as my DSL line was. After learning their internet service worked so well for me, I disconnected my phone line and use Vonage [vonage.com] for voice service. I can assure you, I was filled with tremendous geek joy when I called SBC and asked them to shut my service off.
Re:Nice ruling, but it won't matter (Score:3, Insightful)
No amount of oversight can keep these abuses from happening. For a brief and shining moment, the US had a vibrant and competitive DSL market. Then almost overnight, it was pretty much just Covad and
Re:Nice ruling, but it won't matter (Score:5, Insightful)
Ideally, what should happen, and I think this is what the grandparent is recommending, is that SBC be split into an Incumbent Local Exchange Company (ILEC) and a financially isolated Competative Local Exchange Company (CLEC). Then the ILEC (which would own the wire) can charge the CLEC (who would provide the services) whatever it wants.
The catch would be that the ILEC could not disriminate in either access to facilities or price to any other CLEC (and would really have no incentive to.) This was SNET (Connecticut's phone company) began implementing after the Telecom act of 1996. Then they were bought by SBC and I think that plan was scrapped. Competition is good, and currently, the presently discussed California ruling being a minor exception, we are moving away from that, IMO.
Cheers,
Craig
Parent
in further news... (Score:3, Funny)
Disincentives (Score:3, Informative)
This is similar to all those 'frequent customer' cards at stores today. If you don't have the card, you can still buy a 2 liter bottle of soda, but it will cost you $1.78 instead of $0.99. In return, they get valuable marketing/demographic information.
Making you give up choice or information in return for a discount is not an incentive to buy, only a disincentive to buy from somebody else.
Actually, not always a good idea (Score:4, Interesting)
In a similar vein, but unrelated to these industries: My car/home insurance is through GMAC. I bought my insurance through their website. My fiancee bought hers through GMAC over the phone. Our accounts are completely different, are not accessible to each other, and the GMAC web reps cannot access phone-created accounts and vice versa.
Is it just me, or do these companies run their systems badly?
Article may be bogus (Score:4, Interesting)
The current big issue in California telecom regulation is the "Telecommuncations User's Bill of Rights" [ca.gov], a very mild set of consumer protection rules the industry is fighting.
The CPUC has announced its intent to regulate some DSL-related issues, mainly in the service quality area.
What about Verizon? (Score:3, Interesting)
This is GREAT news (Score:5, Interesting)
A few years ago I signed up for residential DSL with Covad. Since I already had two phone lines into the residence, it was fine to just make one of them the dedicated DSL line.
Unfortunately when the situation changed and I needed to use DSL and voice on the same line, SBC told me it was impossible to do so unless I switched my DSL over to SBC. Needless to say, this pissed me off to no end, because I had three static IP addresses with Covad and their service had been fantastic.
After several hours of screwing around, mistakes, and general incompetence on the part of SBC, I finally got my new account set up. This was immediately prior to SBC's rollout of their wonderful goat rodeo known as SBC/Yahoo service, so at least I avoided that nightmare.
So last year I move to a new house. There is no broadband cable here, and I can't use another DSL provider with my SBC land line service, so I have to go with SBC. SBC is so incompetent that it takes me six weeks to get DSL installed, because their billing system doesn't think that I'm a customer with them. After over a half-dozen lengthy phone calls with tech support, billing, et. al., I finally get them to realize the problem and initiate my service. Needless to say, all of the time I wasted during my work day with this crap is essentially money down a hole.
SBC is a classic example of a local monopoly that is flourishing simply because of a tilted playing field. In the early days of DSL they buried Covad in the residential market by overpromising so that customers would sign up for service with SBC, then wait for months before SBC had the capacity to initiate service.
Splitting phone and DSL service is going to help shake at least some of their complacence in the DSL market, and hopefully real competition from Comcast cable broadband will help as well. SBC is badly in need of a wake up call, and consumers should really benefit from this, provided SBC's competition takes advantage of it.
SBC (Score:3, Funny)
I switched local phone providers away from SBC a year or two ago. Service just as good, and $10-$15/month cheaper.
Then I dropped cable internet in favor of DSL (from the same alternate provider). Their DSL normal rate is the same as SBCs "introductory" three-month rate (I didn't even look at what the SBC "normal" rate would be, and it certainly wan't obvious).
What's most funny is the commercials that SBC was running for awhile, picturing burly linemen putting up telephone poles, complaining that their competitors were operating "over OUR lines, over OUR networks". Uh, you bought the baby bell like a couple of years ago. I doubt you've wired 0.5% of the damn network.
California Public Utilities Commission (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sure they'll be just as effective in this as they were at all of those. Perhaps for their next act, they'll pretend they're King Canute, and order the tide not to come in?
CPUC [ca.gov] is a joke. They're among the worst and least-effective agencies in this state, which is known for its bloated and useless government agencies.
Hey, if anyone wants a cushy government job, they're looking for a new executive director.
Consider the Source (Score:3, Informative)
I hate SBC (Score:4, Informative)
Sonic had a special. Up to 6meg download and 600k upload for $45/month. I signed up immediately. I'm getting about 5Meg/500k and the service is great. During the signup process they asked what OS I was using. Gritting my teeth I said "Linux". Instead of the usual "we don't support that", the guy said, "cool, which distro?".
When I saw some funny stuff (IIS targeting viral infection) from sonic netspace in my apache log I emailed sonic's abuse department. The next morning I had this reply, "We tried to call the customer but were unable to contact him, so we disconnected his service until he resolves this problem." Yep, they actually disconnected a customer because his system was infected with a virus that was attempting to infect other systems.
The only problem I have remaining is with SBC. They still insist I have DSL service with them and keep billing me. I even received a nasty payment demand from them on the same day their marketing department called to sell me DSL service. I've contacted the CPUC to get this resolved since SBC refuses to fix the problem.
To all those who wish to use Vonage (Score:3, Interesting)
Their terms of service are horrid and do not give you any of the rights and/or protections afforded to POTS users. Behold, the terms of service that read more like an EULA:
http://www.vonage.com/features_terms_service.ph
"1.3.1 Prohibited Uses
You agree to use the Service and Device only for lawful purposes. This means that you agree not to use them for transmitting or receiving any communication or material of any kind when in Vonage's sole judgment the transmission, receipt or possession of such communication or material (i) would constitute a criminal offense, give rise to a civil liability, or otherwise violate any applicable local, state, national or international law or (ii) encourages conduct that would constitute a criminal offense, give rise to a civil liability, or otherwise violate any applicable local, state, national or international law. Vonage reserves the right to terminate your service immediately and without advance notice if Vonage, in its sole discretion, believes that you have violated the above restrictions, leaving you responsible for the full month's charges to the end of the current term, including without limitation unbilled charges, plus a disconnect fee, all of which immediately become due and payable and may at Vonage's discretion be immediately charged to your credit card. You are liable for any and all use of the Service and/or Device by yourself and by any person making use of the Service or Device provided to you and agree to indemnify and hold harmless Vonage against any and all liability for any such use. If Vonage, in its sole discretion believes that you have violated the above restrictions, Vonage may forward the objectionable material, as well as your communications with Vonage and your personally identifiable information to the appropriate authorities for investigation and prosecution and you hereby consent to such forwarding.
Yes, that's right folks: They reserve the right to monitor your phone calls, make a judgement as to whether or not what you say on the phone is OK, then forward copies of your phone calls and your personal information to police/FBI/etc. There ain't no wiretapping order required here.
I don't use my phone service to do anything illegal, but I don't want the boys in the Vonage NOC listening in on my phone calls either, nor recording them (which the language implies that they do both.)
But it gets even better:
"3. CHANGES TO THIS AGREEMENT
Vonage may change the terms and conditions of this Agreement from time to time. Notices will be considered given and effective on the date posted on to the "Service Announcements" section of Vonage's website (currently located at http://www.vonage.com/features_terms_service.php ). Such changes will become binding on Customer, on the date posted to the Vonage website and no further notice by Vonage is required. This Agreement as posted supersedes all previously agreed to electronic and written terms of service, including without limitation any terms included with the packaging of the Device and also supersedes any written terms provided to Retail Customers in connection with retail distribution, including without limitation any written terms enclosed within the packaging of the Device.. "
Ah, wonderful. They want the right to post copies of your phone calls on their website? All they need to do is mofify their "terms of service" and give themselves that right.
I don't put up with this kind of crap in EULAs for software, and I sure as hell won't put up with it from my phone company!
Re:California (Score:3, Funny)
You can say *that* [slashdot.org] again
Re:California (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes indeed it is one step ahead of every other state when it comes to taxing it's citizens and businesses into oblivion and spending like there's no tomorrow.
Re:California (Score:3, Interesting)
I kinda think it was.
Re:California (Score:5, Insightful)
Take the Gmail legislative initiatives here in good old CA. While SBC is for all practical purposes a legal monopoly, Google is not... especially for email. Yet our enlightened legislature still feels the need to regulate it to death. First step in the country, but totaly unnecessary and harmful to a California business known to employ many of the best and brightest.
So a step ahead... yes... we'll go over the cliff before everyone else.
Parent
Re:California (Score:5, Insightful)
Why did 'Proposition 13' suddenly spring to mind when I read that?
I don't know. Why? Do you think the state and local governments should be able to tax my grandmother's house at its appraised value of $200,000 rather than the $12,000 she paid for it forty years ago? Jacking up people's taxes based on a something they have no control over (housing prices) is ridiculous. Even when a corporation buys, say, a $1.5 million building and five years later it's worth $5 million, there's no rational justification for taxing them based on the $5M figure. Just because it's worth $5M doesn't mean the owner would be willing or even able to buy it at that price, were he buying it at that time.
Parent
Re:California (Score:4, Insightful)
But it's perfectly reasonable to say that they should be taxed on the inflation-adjusted value of the property based on the base year. So your $1.5 million property bought in 1999 should be taxed at about $1.7 million in 2004. However, under Prop 13, it can't go up more than 2% per year, so it's taxed at $1.65 million. That's over five years, with very low inflation... people who have owned their houses since 1978 are paying on tiny fractions of the inflation-adjusted assessed values of their properties.
Meanwhile, the government is still subject to paying cost of living increases to gov't employees, and higher prices for materials, and all that other stuff that happens because of normal rates of inflation. While all the time, their revenues from property taxes can be guaranteed to fall relative to costs. Yeah, that makes all *kinds* of sense...
Parent
Re:California, prices off (Score:3, Interesting)
I suspect you're illustrating a point, but let's pretend you aren't. Sorry if this is offtopic, but sometimes I need to respond to an inaccurate post with real data. Either either your numbers are off, or your units are.
Here in Illinois, we get power from Commonwealth Edison [exeloncorp.com]. The summer rates are (direct link HERE [exeloncorp.com]):
Summer Months (June 15th to Sept. 15th):
For all kilowatt-ho
Re:California (Score:3, Interesting)
Huh? When I moved from carlisle, pa to elizabethtown, pa, I was able to stay with my (SMALL!) ISP, planet cable, even though I have sprint phone service, and sprint has their own DSL offering.
Regulation is the only way a small ISP can even stay in business now. My ISP is called "planetcable" because they USED to be a cable provider. Guess what? When comcast took over the local cable, they forced planetcable to become a DSL provi
SBC service in MO (Score:3, Interesting)
I have SBC DSL (I'm in St. Louis County) and I pay $50 a month for it. I get 1.5/384. One thing to note, DSL reports is dog slow in this area.
dslreports.com consistently reports that I'm getting 128k down, yet all my downloads are in the 160K range (no, k isn't the same as K). Based on the conversion from k to K and the expected packet loss (they told me when I signed up to expect 30% at worst), it comes out right. I'm guessing the problem lies with dslreports.com's distinct la