how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
Anon | reply to boogie74
Re: Down with SBC! In response to the post by boogie74:
You're right. ISPs aren't prevented from investing in DSLAMs. But you might be surprised at the barriers that incumbent phone companies like SBC can create to make sure that ISPs who install DSLAMs are given a competitive *disadvantage*. SBC does not want to cooperate with CLECs and, as the company who controls the infrastructure, SBC has the unique ability to make things miserable for anyone who is attempting to compete with them.
I am the owner of a small ISP in Los Angeles and we are partnered with SBC. Every day I see SBC use it's monopoly to create barriers against us. We react to this because we have been around for almost seven years and we don't want to loose our long-time customers to SBC.
But it's difficult going up against a company who has unfair advantage. As a government sanctioned monopoly, SBC are the legal owners of the physical copper that connects homes to the greater phone company infrastructure. They have right-of-way everywhere in their territory and no competitors are allowed to trench and lay their own cables.
Monopolies like this are illegal except in situations like the one SBC has inherited. As I understand it, the legal monopoly was granted back in the 1930s where, in the interest of communication, it was the only way to erect a nationwide telecommunications system. In response to the antiquated laws of the 1930s the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was created. It's purpose was to foster innovation by allowing (quote) "anyone [to] enter any communications business -- to let any communications business compete in any market against any other". But instead of modernizing the Telecom Act of 1934 the '96 Act has allowed incumbent phone companies to gain an unfair advantage over ISPs while maintaining their government granted monopoly.
Some phone companies *did* modify their operations to comply, not only with the laws, but with the spirit of competition that was proposed in the telecom act. our partnership with GTE has been successful for both ISP and phone company. We have many satisfied customers connected and have added five new high speed connections into the GTE network since we first partnered with them in 1999.
I have seen the operations of GTE California, a phone company who I believe embraced the spirit of competition, and I compare this to the operations of Pacific Bell. Pacfic Bell (wholly owned by SBC) found loopholes that would allow them to maintain monopoly control over services like DSL. Not coincidentally, independent companies who were dependent on Pac Bell like Flashcom, Zyan and Northpoint all went out of business leaving hundreds of thousands of Californians without Internet service.
I am not in love with GTE by any means. In fact, we have major problems with them too. But the unfortunate situation created by Pacific Bell eclipses any of the problems we have with Verizon (who owns GTE). As a result of our partnership with these two phone companies I am witness to the differences of an ethically operated phone company compared against those of a greedy desensitized company, whose only motivation seems to be domination of all Internet and telecom markets without regard to consumers time or inconvenience.
So, why did so many DSL service providers suddenly go out of business? How could Pacific Bell decimate all of its competition so effectively? Another ISP owner and CISPA board member answered these questions best when she said (quote): "Pacific Bell has mastered the art of strategic incompetence". Botched installations, mysteriously deleted orders and grossly incorrect billing are the weapons SBC uses against any competitors who dare to travel onto SBC turf.
To this day, my company, L A Bridge continues to provide DSL and Internet services. We didn't put all of our eggs in the DSL basket. Thanks to T-1s, Co-location and dial-up we continue to operate in the black. We encourage consumers to use independent, local ISPs who provide localized and individualized services. If you live in California then visit CISPA.org for a list of these indie providers. And if you have had an unfortunate experience with Pacific Bell then we ask you to contact the Public Utilities Commission and voice your opinion.
--Tony Cappelli
L A Bridge Internet & DSL | |
| said by Cappelli:
In response to the post by boogie74:
........Monopolies like this are illegal except in situations like the one SBC has inherited. As I understand it, the legal monopoly was granted back in the 1930s where, in the interest of communication, it was the only way to erect a nationwide telecommunications system.
No comment on the other stuff, but you're flunking history.SBC is not a monopoly,(cable competes) and competitors are not forbidden to lay cable, or the cable industry wouldn't exist. AT&T requested and was granted monopoly status in 1913-14, in exchange for allowing other phone companies (thousands of them)to inter-connect. AT&T lobbyists also conceived the regulatory framework, which brought AT&T phenomenal prosperity.Phones became ubiquitous as a result of a 1925 decision by AT&T's chairman to lower prices for higher volume profitability. He funded the expansion by selling IT&T and international rights. .
--
Pupowski
"Revolution is just evolution with more bandwidth" | |
|
