Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United States Communications The Internet Your Rights Online

California Orders SBC to Split Phone, DSL Service 302

Posted by timothy 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This discussion has been archived.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.

California Orders SBC to Split Phone, DSL Service More

California Orders SBC to Split Phone, DSL Service

Comments Filter:

  • Spiffy... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by ksilebo ( 134470 ) *
    Because when I had SBC's DSL in Michigan, it was way oversold and sucked.

    • Re:Spiffy... (Score:2, Informative)

      by 89cents ( 589228 )
      SBC has been quite competitive lately. Maybe because of the pending regulation.

      SBC's DSL prices here [sbc.com]

      Your basic DSL for $26.95 for 384kbps - 1.5Mbps. I was getting 1.2Mbps. Now I have the "pro" package for $36.99 a month and am getting 2.5Mbps download. I used to have some service outages because their PPPoE server would be down and not authenicate me, but it been quite reliable so far this year.

      • SBC has been quite competitive lately. Maybe because of the pending regulation.

        No, I think it's instead because of competition from the cable industry. What do cable providers in your area charge for similar speeds?

    • I have a friend in South Korea. The Internet Providers there offer service that should make American providers down right EMBARRASSED! His concept of a high speed link and my DSL fed one are a few megabytes (beg-a-byte?) per second seperated from each other..

  • How to get around this (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Mz6 ( 741941 ) * on Wednesday June 16, 2004 @01:01PM (#9443374) Journal
    How do they get around this?

    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.

    • Re:How to get around this (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I have a similiar problem with the telecomm service for my apartment building. [stonearchapartments.com] A crappy local telecomm firm *cough* Campus Communication [campuscomm...onsinc.com] wired the building with phone and ethernet lines, and it's impossible to get cable modem service, or Qwest DSL service (because of contracts the building owners have with the telecomm and satellite TV firms). They wired about 200 apartments with two measly T1 lines, and have constant problems with packet loss and zombie computers flooding the T1s. I get about 40K/s at the
    • It can be even more restrictive! The complex I am moving into in Chicago has a cable requirement. I have, essentially, a $16 monthly surcharge on my rent that goes to cable. I don't know what channels that comes with so I can't say whether it's a good deal or not.

  • I prefer one company to place my blame on. (Score:5, Informative)

    by garcia ( 6573 ) * on Wednesday June 16, 2004 @01:01PM (#9443376)
    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 [com.com] at ZDnet from 6/14/2004.

    • Re:I prefer one company to place my blame on. (Score:5, Informative)

      by niall2 ( 192734 ) on Wednesday June 16, 2004 @01:12PM (#9443507) Homepage
      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.
      • 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.

        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
        • 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.

          But the only company that has anything to do with your connection's reliability or speed is most likely the phone company.
          I work for an ISP selling DSL, and there honestly isn't much that we have to do with the network. The phone lines are the telco's, the DSLAM is the telco's, the T3 lines leaving the DSLAMs are the telco's. We only get invo

    • Re:I prefer one company to place my blame on. (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      One problem (atleast in California) in the past has been that SBC the Phone Company is providing the lines to a division of its own company (i.e. SBC Yahoo DSL), the Internet Service Provider, who in turn is in competition with other Internet Service Providers. So you will see shit like finger pointing, but one would hope that this "Order" by California is to split up SBC the Phone Company and SBC the Internet Service Provider for good.

  • Thanks (Score:5, Funny)

    by thedillybar ( 677116 ) on Wednesday June 16, 2004 @01:02PM (#9443389)
    They had to do something to cheer up LA after the NBA Finals.

    Go Pistons.

  • Price Discrimination? (Score:5, Informative)

    by swordboy ( 472941 ) on Wednesday June 16, 2004 @01:03PM (#9443395) Journal
    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.

    • right on! Just like comcast/cable modem bundle pricing....if you want JUST the cable modem the price is jacked.
    • If SBC charges 150$ why would anyone use them? There are (in most cases) other ISPs here in CA that have nothing to do with SBC.

    • Re:Price Discrimination? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by kjd ( 41294 )
      So you think it would be cool if the state ordered someone to set a lower price for a service they provide in a competitive market? How many laws are required to please everyone?
      • Once you throw one "law" into the free market, you have to make sure that law will stand up to the system or the market will flow around ("Oh, we MUST offer service X? Fine, we'll just price it out of the market").

        Ofcourse, patchwork messes like that are why lawyers have become the modern super-thugs that we have today. Unfortunately, it seems that lawmakers aren't very smart about creating robust, simple laws.

        I say stop hiring lawyers and start hiring gamers and programmers to make laws. We know what
    • SBC/Pacific Bell - for some reason I really prefer calling it Pacific Bell even though it was Pacific Telesis and then became SBC - has always seemed like the least evil of the local phone companies.

      Because of their reputation for evil, though, I used Covad with two different DSL providers when I first got Covad. They provided me with nothing but mediocre-at-best IDSL with slug-like 128k connections.

      When Rhythms went bust (I had switched to them when Covad turned out to be awful), I switched to Pacific B
      • Companies whose name is not immediately recognizable from history as being associated with a specific product should be required to have what they do in their name.

        I.e. SBC should be forced to advertise itself as SBC: The Phone People, or something. (Why not just rename themselves to "PHONE KING!" ?) Companies such as IBM, around for 100-ish years, are a household name, but SBC isn't.

    • Re:Price Discrimination? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by blackmonday ( 607916 ) on Wednesday June 16, 2004 @01:38PM (#9443783) Homepage
      As a california customer of SBC DSL/phone service, let me tell you something you may find interesting - I pay 45 bucks a month average for combined services, and I get 1.5 download, 128 upload. It never goes down, except once when my modem died. SBC has not cooperated in giving out the identity of their customers to the RIAA.

      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.

      • 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.

        I am moving in August to a house of my own. I will have to move providers and will be forced into using Charter. They don't allow any servers to be run and apparently block port 25 except to their own mail servers. While that annoys me royally that's not the point of my post...

        The point is that I just checked charter.com
        • They may have upped the service and lowered the price, I don't know. I know that last year it was 80 bucks a month for 1.5 down. Oh, and the 45 bucks I pay now includes phone service - the actual DSL is only 30 bucks, and I'm happy with it. Your mileage may vary.

    • They should not be allowed to bundle. The only reason I get cable is because WOW offers it for $15 if you've got internet through them. If they couldn't tie these different things, they'd probably lower the cost of each one to accomodate the large number of people who want both (not equal demand of course so the price of TV and net wouldn't be equal).
    • It is fairly affordable but you also have to pay for phone service to get it. Lots of people only use a portable phone and have no use for a land-line. In my area cable internet service isn't available yet so if you want broadband you have to sign up for SBC's phone and DSL service (or go with these guys where available [digitalpath.net]). I might ditch my land-line now.

  • This is a good idea (Score:4, Funny)

    by 91degrees ( 207121 ) on Wednesday June 16, 2004 @01:03PM (#9443397) Journal
    But doesn't this infringe on the company's constituional right to screw over their customers?

  • Great News (Score:5, Interesting)

    by WordODD ( 706788 ) on Wednesday June 16, 2004 @01:03PM (#9443400)
    I recently tried to get DSL from Verizon and was told that I could get it, BUT since I am not a Verizon customer I would have to pay an outrageous fee on top of the monthly DSL charge. I prefer not to have a home phone since my cell phone is superior in value, performance and usability for my needs. Hopefully, this will make these types of fees disappear and anyone will be able to get DSL whether or not the have a landline through the company or not.

  • Finally (Score:2, Informative)

    by faust2097 ( 137829 )
    I personally know 7 or 8 people who only have a land line because they need DSL. I know several more [myself included] who went for cable because there was no 'naked' DSL option. In San Francisco cable internet has been very slow to spread because the cable system is so old and hacked together.

    That said, I'm never giving SBC a dime of my money again if I can help it.
    • My impression of this is that you don't have to have phone service from the same company you have DSL service from, but you still have to have phone service from someone.

      no?

      i don't have a land line, so I don't have DSL.
      • I believe this is correct. The phone network was not created so you could have the wire connected but no dialtone. So to get DSL the line has to be connected, and hence you have to have at least local phone service.

        At least this is how it has been explained to me (by Verizon mind you).

        • Re:Finally (Score:3, Informative)

          by Otto ( 17870 )
          Verizon lied to you. DSL will work without a dial tone. They can hook it to a naked pair just fine. The problem is a bureaucractic one, not technological one.

          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)

    by fiannaFailMan ( 702447 ) on Wednesday June 16, 2004 @01:05PM (#9443423) Journal
    that they were selling the benefits to the customer of only having one bill. I can see it now. "We're splitting your bill in two to better meet your needs."

  • Is This Something New? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by perdu ( 549634 )
    I thought phone and DSL were already split in most places. The article says SBC will loose all of it's broadband business but I don't see how -- can't they still offer a discount if you get phone plus DSL? One less bill to worry about each month -- works for me!

  • Bell South - my new hero!!!! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by grunt107 ( 739510 ) on Wednesday June 16, 2004 @01:09PM (#9443462)
    I love the "we have no competition so we'll do as we please" comment. You gotta love hubris of this scale. Too bad when competition does come (wireless anyone?) that same mentality will be their downfall.

  • What I've always wondered... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Tim_F ( 12524 ) on Wednesday June 16, 2004 @01:09PM (#9443465)
    Does this allow you to have a DSL connection without a local land line?

    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...

  • Speakeasy? (Score:2, Redundant)

    by SoCalChris ( 573049 )
    Will this allow me to get a different DSL provider, such as SpeakEasy, without having phone service?

  • But I like my bundle (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SteroidMan ( 782859 ) on Wednesday June 16, 2004 @01:11PM (#9443482)
    I could care less who me DSL/local/longdistance carrier is as long as it works reasonably well. If California gets rid of the discount for getting all 3 through SBC it would raise my bill by 40 bucks a month! Sometimes regulation is not worth the taxes we pay for it, and this is one case where I don't think anyone will save money (unless they are willing to put up with a great deal of angst).

    • Re:But I like my bundle (Score:5, Funny)

      by oliphaunt ( 124016 ) on Wednesday June 16, 2004 @01:42PM (#9443821) Homepage
      this is one case where I don't think anyone will save money (unless they are willing to put up with a great deal of angst)

      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.
    • SBC came up with the creative scheme where it was cheaper for you to go through them for all three services instead of going to seperate firms. This law will force them to first of all split these services up and price them differently. Its purely up to them whether to stick with the high price these individual services would in turn cost or to price them competitively so that the customer gets the best of both worlds.

      When I was comparing DSL and Cable, the reason I didnt choose BellSouth in Atlanta was I

  • Sounds good (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 16, 2004 @01:11PM (#9443492)
    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).

  • Now if they would do the same to cable (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ColdBoot ( 89397 ) on Wednesday June 16, 2004 @01:16PM (#9443545)
    I wish Adelphia woulkd be forced to follow suit. I don't really want cable TV but am forced to get it just to have the broadband cable access.
    • I have broadband from Adelphia without cable TV. I pay $55/month just for broadband ("Adelphia Powerlink" is what they call it). Sure, broadband when clubbed with some other service would be cheaper, but I don't watch TV anyways, so why get it?

  • SBC service in IL (Score:2, Informative)

    by weeboo0104 ( 644849 )
    I used to have SBC until April of this year.

    For $49 a month (which they say was discounted because I signed up for a year with Yahoo) plus $34 for local service, I had ISDN speed that they claim was 348kbps. I NEVER saw any speed faster than 100kbps. Their website test said the speed was 340kbps, but DSL reports.com and manually clocking my downloads told a different story.

    I cancelled their service and ate the $200 cancellation fee for not using their service for a year. I'll never use SBC again.

    I now

    • SBC service in MO (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Mattintosh ( 758112 )
      Wow, it must suck to be you.

      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
  • Wasn't this supposed to be the age of convergence? Getting everything from one provider? I now get my telephone service from cellular. Television service from Time Warner Cable. And might get my internet service from SBC.

  • Nice ruling, but it won't matter (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jdblair ( 3634 ) on Wednesday June 16, 2004 @01:18PM (#9443565)
    The only way to create a level playing field is for the people who own the wires (SBC) to not be the ones selling DSL. There are a million subtle ways SBC can make life difficult for Covad (and any other third-party DSL providers that enter the market). As long as SBC sells its own DSL service they will have an incentive to do so.

    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.
    • You are absolutely right. Congress screwed up big time in the 1996 Telecommunications act when they failed to realize that there is simply no way you can let a monopoly like a local telco into an unregulated business like DSL without said company thoroughly abusing its monopoly position against its competitors.

      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

  • in further news... (Score:3, Funny)

    by ForsakenRegex ( 312284 ) on Wednesday June 16, 2004 @01:19PM (#9443570) Homepage
    The state of California has also ruled that SBC has an unfair adventage versus competition in the accidental severing of network backbones. The government of California has ordered SBC to let passers by operate their equipment so that all unskilled people who wish accidentally sever buried lines have an equal chance.

  • Disincentives (Score:3, Informative)

    by scrod98 ( 609124 ) on Wednesday June 16, 2004 @01:20PM (#9443583)
    There will likely be price breaks for people who do take bundled plans. We get a discount (of something like 10% off total) for having cable and a cable modem, and could get phone service through the same company. We are free to buy DSL or whatever else we want, just not cost effective to do so.

    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.

  • quite sometime, like 4 years now. I was not even aware you had to have SBC phone to get their DSL. I have Astound phone service and SBC DSL from way back, static IP and no LAME enternet software. If they force me to change I'll just drop them and keep the covad sdsl connect I have or the Astound fiber/cable connect I have. The DSL service is not the fastest I've seen but is ROCK steady and the downtime is very minimal.
    • You must have the fortune of living in the same place for quite awhile, I move often (like every 6 months) and for quite some time SBC will not give you DSL service without having their phone service (which sucks because I do not need a house phone my cell is what I use) I usually end up just using other DSL providers but this last place I am in I got stuck with only SBC which sucks.

  • Actually, not always a good idea (Score:4, Interesting)

    by lukewarmfusion ( 726141 ) on Wednesday June 16, 2004 @01:23PM (#9443615) Homepage Journal
    Comcast sells their cable and their internet separately. As a result, they have to keep their systems separate. When you call Comcast cable to inquire about your bill, they can't help you with anything related to the Internet charges - and vice versa. Maybe it's just how they have it set up (badly) or maybe it's a consequence of having the two areas split.

    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?
    • They're separate? Interesting, I pay a penalty every month for cable internet access because I don't use their cable service for my television. If they were truly separate the pricing would not be dependant on each other.....

    • Yeah, but they're on the same pipe, no? Which is why "Naked" Cable internet w/o cable TV costs slightly more than basic cable + basic data... they don't have the technology to give you data service without giving you access to 36 cable channels as well.
    • Frankly, I am envious of the California decision.
      I really really don't want to have a voice line in my apartment, but I have a need for internet access and due to a number of circumstances cannot get my local cable provider's (Cogeco) internet only service, so I am forced to go through Bell Canada.
      Yes, I know, I could have got a 3rd party DSL in, but I would still have to go through the Telco to get voice service.
      I just want to have the choice of a DSL only line coming in.
      And as for the issues of cable prov

  • Article may be bogus (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Animats ( 122034 ) on Wednesday June 16, 2004 @01:24PM (#9443626) Homepage
    If this was real, there should have been an announcement from the California Public Utilities Commission [ca.gov]. There isn't.

    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.

  • I lived through the Pacific Telesis split-up that birthed AT&T, Pacific Bell, etc. Now we have Verizon buying up all the small guys... GTE, Airtouch, NorthPoint, etc. I applaud the decision to reign SBC back in a bit, but when is someone going to put a smack down on Verizon. They're international, doing local, long distance, cellular, wireless, and DSL. They are exactly what everyone feared Pacific Telesis would be which is why they were split and deregulated. If we're not careful, the world will soon b
  • I live in the Bay area and have had great SBC internet service for many years. My same account, and email address have followed me without a hitch to residences in SF, Oakland and Berkeley. There was zero downtime in my internet service when I made my last move. It was on as soon as my telephone line was on, which was the day I moved in.

    While choice is nice, I really doubt that having separate phone line and DSL providers will be able to take an existing account and transfer it to a new number in a new
    • "And also I'm not sure what they mean by allowing people to "choose any DSL company they wish". My neighbor has DSL through SpeakEasy and my workplace has it through EarthLink."

      You can have SBC phone service and any DSL provider you want. However, if you want SBC DSL service you have to have a SBC phone service as well. You can not have Verizon phone service and SBC DSL, even though you could have SBC phone service and Earthlink DSL service.
  • I get 1.5 meg on my SBC DSL and good cheap phone and long distance service. As usual, the state should just shut the crap up and get out of the market.

    This state is run by a bunch of socialist baboons whose then wonder why every business that can afford to gets out as quickly as possible.

  • What about Verizon? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Newer Guy ( 520108 ) on Wednesday June 16, 2004 @01:30PM (#9443694)
    "Verizon and QWest is already ahead of the game since they are already offer "Naked DSL" options that allows users to buy broadband services alone." Verizon does not offer the option of naked DSL in California. I know, because I just tried to order it and was told it is not available. I know they plan to test the concept in some eastern states. I'm now wondering if this decision would force Verizon to begin offering naked DSL here as well.
  • Comcast should have to separate their internet service and their cable. I use directv/tivo so therefore I must pay a penalty extra price for cable internet access. If DSL and phone run over the same line, but are separate features, then cable and internet access over the same cable should be separate features as well. Customers shouldn't pay extra for internet just because they don't want to use one of your other services.

    • ... and how about letting cable providers into the telephony side of things like they do in the UK? That would give the consumer a choice in both who provides the service and who provides the line. Then separate the service areas that each company offers and allow competition in all areas.

  • This is GREAT news (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Infonaut ( 96956 ) <infonaut@gmail.com> on Wednesday June 16, 2004 @01:35PM (#9443739) Homepage Journal
    I live in a part of Northern California that still doesn't have cable broadband. Apparently it's going to be rolled out by Comcast within the next two or three months, but I'll believe it when I see it.

    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.

    • I had a similar experience (same area I imagine). It took them about a month to get my DSL back when I moved. Then a few months later they myseteriously forgot that I was one of their customers and turned my DSL service off. It was another month getting it turned back on. Each instance of getting the service turned on consisted of of about a dozen phone calls, and there is no such thing as a short phone call to SBC. Their phone tree is horrendous. I am happy to see the split. I might cancel my phone
  • I had to switch local carriers to get the DSL product from them - it was required by my ISP/Phone company.

    I see why - Internet and Phone service is so competitive that many CLECs lose money on the DSL product but make up for it on the voice services.

    SBC blows - I was glad to dump them for my current ISP. But I wonder if the CLECs are held to the same ruling if we'll see naked DSL prices skyrocket?
  • ...but then no DSL. In my area the Cable was just to unreliable and BellSouth had a great deal. Maybe this precedent will carry over to the rest of the country. My cell + Vonage is quite enough phone service for me.
  • If they have to un-bundle it, they'll probably just dump it. Sell the DSL business off to some other company.

    Contrary to popular belief, DSL service isn't very profitable compated to phone/long-distance. That's why they bundled it in the first place.

  • SBC (Score:3, Funny)

    by cascadingstylesheet ( 140919 ) on Wednesday June 16, 2004 @01:52PM (#9443913) Journal

    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)

    by fhic ( 214533 ) on Wednesday June 16, 2004 @02:02PM (#9444013)
    Would this be the same CPUC that allowed the taxpayers to be royally raped by Enron and associates? Or that "demanded" that Northpoint continue to provide service for 30 days after they decided to unplug their network? The same CPUC that can't be bothered to negotiate with our neighboring states for water rights?

    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)

    by oliphaunt ( 124016 ) on Wednesday June 16, 2004 @02:03PM (#9444019) Homepage
    Google news [google.com] finally picked this up- interestingly the first link is to overclocker.com, instead of this [com.com]one which has much better coverage of what actually happened :-/

  • I hate SBC (Score:4, Informative)

    by rossz ( 67331 ) <ogre&geekbiker,net> on Wednesday June 16, 2004 @02:17PM (#9444157) Journal
    Back in February I switched my DSL service from SBC to Sonic.net [sonic.net]. SBC was charging way too much for a static connection ($65/month) that was too slow (128k upload cap) while at the same time dramatically dropping the cost of the dynamic service and increasing the bandwidth.

    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)

    by rabtech ( 223758 ) on Wednesday June 16, 2004 @02:24PM (#9444227) Homepage
    Anyone who uses Vonage, has thought about using Vonage, or currently uses Vonage should think again. I only say this because people leaving comments have suggested abandoning POTS and going with Vonage:

    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.php

    "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!

Slashdot Top Deals

2.4 statute miles of surgical tubing at Yale U. = 1 I.V.League

Close