how-to block ads
|
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| Re: what a shocking surprise! said by Camelot One  :Why is it SBC's responsibility? ... Why should they go out of their way to make sure people who DON'T use their service are taken care of? ... Because they are in a position of control over the 9-1-1 system. The whole affair is that SBC uses that control to prevent other carriers from completing 9-1-1 calls unless they pay outrageous rates to SBC, based on tariffs that were set when there wasn't any competition.
In short: SBC's rates for 9-1-1 functions are outrageously high. SBC charges these rates to governments, to themselves, and to competitors.
The amounts SBC charges to itself are a wash. The amounts charged to others are extortionate profits.
It's as if a city awarded a contract to one ambulance firm to align the stoplights to facilitate ambulance runs. That firm, when it is a monopoly, decides to charge itself $800 per ambulance run to align the stoplights. When the second ambulance firm comes to town, the first tries to charge it $800 per run for the stoplight service. The first firm also refuses any effort to lower the cost or explore alternatives, saying instead that an "industry standards process" needs to review the issue.
Do you begin to understand the problem here? Do you begin to understand why the second firm would offer service without the stoplight alignment, but also warning their customers that when paying half the price, they don't get stoplight alignment?
said by Camelot One :... Whats next, expecting them to provide free dial tone just in case a non-paying customer needs to make a call? Uhh, that's actually already the law in several states. In those states, when a line is disconnected but not re-used, the LEC is obligated to provide "warm line" service that works only for 9-1-1.
calvoiper
PS--the expression is "cry foul", not "cry fowl", unless you're looking for chickens, ducks, and geese.
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
|  
Camelot One
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-21
Sarasota, FL
clubs:
| Re: what a shocking surprise! First off, fowl wasn't a typo. (SBC too chicken to compete on a level field) Little play on words, not that it matters.
But no, I still don't see the problem. Using your example, I still say why does company A have any obligation what so ever to help company B steal their customers? They provide an ambulance service that works, and that is the end of their obligation to the consumer.
I'm not saying I agree with the way 911 was paid for, nor in who runs it. But the fact remains...SBC in this case is in control, and I see no reason for them to cut Vonage any breaks. If the FCC wants to step in and do something that is great. That is what they are for. But if I were a share holder in SBC, I'd be pissed at any moves to help the competition, and resolving the 911 issue for VoIP providers would be exactly that.
All that said, after multiple posts defending them...I'd like to point out that I hate SBC. I am a Vonage and CallVantage customer.
--
AMD A64 3200+/ MSI K8N Neo/ 2x 512Mb Kingston HyperX PC4000/ WD 74Gb Raptor/ Gainward GF4 4600/Gainward 5200PCI/ Antec 550 True Control/Custom water cooler | |
| |
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| Re: what a shocking surprise! If you think it's OK for a company to turn a basic service contract with a government unit into a way to exclude competition, then I understand why you support SBC here.
Otherwise, I think SBC is acting in inexcusable self interest. By your logic, they should prohibit their linemen from helping out auto accident victims because it might cause overtime or extra wear and tear on their trucks...
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
| | | |
|
