Expose:
AT&T’s Local Monopoly Continues Unabated
September 22, 2009 by Kyle BradyTags: AT&T, Internet, ISP, Lies, Monopoly, Net Neutrality
As required by the FTC, a Full Disclosure is available - this piece adheres to the Code of Ethics
After the blocking of 4chan by AT&T earlier this summer and their continued filtering/throttling of my traffic, I decided it was time to find a new ISP. I’d had Comcast before and left for reasons of ethics and principle, and I wasn’t going back. Verizon and other major providers are not available in the South Bay area for some reason – so I went hunting for local providers that probably wouldn’t have the legal departments necessary for the corporate doublespeak of filtering/throttling customers.
But a problem came up pretty quickly: while there are a number of local ISPs for the South Bay, none of them were feasible. The only company that uses ADSL for residential purposes is north of San Francisco (too far), and the rest, both cable and DSL, were more than happy to offer their services, so long as I had an AT&T phone account.
So, just to clarify: if I wanted internet service that wasn’t from AT&T (who I currently have ADSL with, no phone number necessary), I’d have to get phone service (at $14.95/mth) with the very same company I’m trying to leave. Either that or become a customer of Comcast again, for $33/mth that would double after a few months to $66/mth – more than I pay now for “Elite PRO DSL” ($45/mth) and with worse speeds.
I was pretty angry, and set out to find out why I had to have AT&T phone service to have plans with these local ISPs – even those that were providing “cable” or “fusion” network connections. The answer was pretty simple, and I didn’t have to do much digging: AT&T owns almost all of the phone lines in the South Bay area. They don’t rent them, monitor them, or manage them, but own them, and for consumer traffic to cross their lines they require a phone service account.
There’s a number of issues with this, but the first that comes to mind is pretty basic: why is Verizon nowhere to be found within the Bay Area? Their FiOS program is exploding to the point that they’re giving up the landline phone service business, and yet the company that is known for providing the fastest, best, most reliable next-generation broadband services cannot be found within Silicon Valley. How is that a good business decision? As a company, Verizon would stand to easily make millions from the countless rich nerds that populate the Bay Area who would love to have fiber-to-the-home. But even if Verizon seems to think it’s in their best interest to ignore Silicon Valley, where is Time Warner? Or Earthlink? Or even Covad, with a residential offering? These large companies are the kinds of corporate behemoths that would force AT&T to make concessions, so consumers wouldn’t have to have dual accounts.
The second major issue is pretty obvious as well: why does AT&T own all the phone lines in the Bay Area? This is obviously not something that’s going to benefit the general public, and doesn’t seem like the sort of power governments (local, state, and federal) would want to give to a breakup child of the Bell monopoly. In many areas, phone lines are owned by the state, and companies rent or “pay to manage” these lines – the only time a line is owned by a company is when it’s long-haul or a line to a residence. But California chose, in all its magnificence, to let AT&T own the phone lines and essentially stifle local competition.
Finally, the other, and most important, issue is one of monopoly. The sort of de facto local monopoly that AT&T has on DSL and landline phone service in the South Bay is not a unique case, similar to how Comcast is the only provider of cable. All across the country, consumers have no choice when they want DSL, phone, or cable service, and instead have to use the only offering available – this results in higher prices, corporate indifference, and unnecessary corporate growth. At a minimum, there should be two major offerings for all services in any given urban/suburban area, which the FCC seems to realize with the cap of Comcast’s nationwide customer base.
But, somehow, they have ignored the local monopolies that develop either out of coincidence, intent, or collusion - even while customers continue to be ignored, lied to, and overall screwed. Does anyone really wonder why both AT&T and Comcast feel that they can lie to the FCC - about numerous issues, on varied occasions - and get away with it? When you have a large customer base that will never significantly shrink, you can depend on certain levels of income year after year – certainly more than enough to pay for litigation and the FCC’s fines.
I’m disgusted that I’ve been put in such a corner, but I truly have no choice. Comcast is the one true Antichrist, so I will not be their customer again – and yet AT&T is the Antichrist’s First Disciple. When faced with the choice of a $15/mth phone line plus $40/mth internet service, or $45/mth internet service, which option does a poor college student take? The least expensive one, of course.
Which in this case means I’m continuing to support the very company that hates my existence, proven by the double-billing, lying, traffic filtering, and overall poor customer service I’ve received since I became their customer two years ago.
What a load of crap.
Kyle can be found on Twitter and MySpace, or reached via email.
