interesting-people message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]

Subject: [IP] more on SBC to raise DSL pricing 25-43% (unless you bundle)

  • From: David Farber <>
  • To: Ip Ip <>
  • Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 05:52:39 -0500

Begin forwarded message:

From: Bob Frankston <>
Date: October 30, 2005 10:09:20 PM EST
To:, 'Ip Ip' <>
Cc: 'Frank Muto' <info@ISPNETWORKS.ORG>
Subject: RE: [IP] SBC to raise DSL pricing 25-43% (unless you bundle)

Sorry to keep responding to this story but it's a rock that keeps yield surprises each time you look underneath.

If you look through the pricing and offerings things get very strange. All
I can think of is ATT's Excite@Home debacle. How much do the policymakers
at SBC really understand? Of course they are on a PR effort to sell the
idea that they should get a cut of the value added by users -- again, just
like ATT tried.

One problem is the pricing for their slow connections -- far less cost
effective than any of the three >=10mbps services I can get here in Newton,
Ma. And the up-speeds I get are .5-.7mbps over cable and I'm promised 2mbps
via FIOS.

The prices I pay are still high because I have to cover the cost of three
wired bit pipe infrastructures (plus the wireless ones) that exist only to
allow billing to cover the cost of the three pipes.

I also notice that their home networking supports up to 10 devices. That
sounds like a lot until you start to put your printers, scanners and other
devices on our network. Of course they aren't really selling connectivity
-- they are selling web browsing and entertainment.

What does it mean to bundle Yahoo anyway -- I get their toolbar installed
as a &quot;favor&quot;? What other implications?

Does SBC understand connectivity any better than ATT did?

There's also a very strange term as associated with an MP3 offer of some

&quot;You will also be charged a monthly FUSF (Federal Universal Service Fund)
cost recovery fee to help cover charges from our data transport supplier
pursuant to state and federal telecom regulations. This fee is not a tax or
government required charge.&quot;

What is a fee that is not a tax and not required? What is going on? Reading
through the terms you find all sorts of traps lurking.

On the other hand unlike FIOS which bans servers (as if they could explain
what that means). SBC approves of servers -- makes it hard for their
competitors to enforce restrictions.

This is why I'm not too worried about these efforts in the long term but it
will add to the confusion in the near future as these companies use their
primary tool -- the loud whine -- to protect them from having to really

You are subscribed as
To manage your subscription, go to

Archives at:

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]

Search: Match: Sort by:
Words: | Help


Powered by eList eXpress LLC