SBC forcing new contract on ISPs

There are two issues with the new SBC contract that are of concern to me. One
is that the new contract allows SBC to provide us (the ISP) with a single
PPPoE stream with which to provide DSL Internet service, while allowing SBC
to sell any number of other services over the same DSL circuit. This
wouldn't be a huge problem, except for two things: we are not given the
opportunity to also sell other services over that DSL circuit, and we are
also made responsible for billing the DSL circuit to the customer. So in
effect, SBC is reserving the right to market their own private services over
a DSL circuit that we, in fact, own.

The other issue is actually of greater concern to me. They are planning to
force me to convert all of my existing DSL customers to PPPoE. They are all
currently configured with bridging, using Cisco RBE. It would not only be
hopelessly disruptive to convert all of those customers to PPPoE, it is
physically impossible in some cases.

So the upshot is that I won't sign a contract that forces me to do something
impossible, and certainly against by business interests.

Educate me: are you not at this time billing the customer for the
local loop? Here in VZ territory, the cost of the local loop lease from VZ
and the DSLAM access from Covad (in your case, SBC provides both of
these, right?) are both rolled into the standard monthly fee from my ISP.
Is this not how it's done in SBC land?


... so then your contract expires, and only SBC remains.

This hurts SBC precisely how, again?

Not faulting you, in fact I applaud your stance, but let's not harbor any delusions that your stance will do anything but benefit SBC. The more people who end their SBC contracts that way, the more DSL customers are suddenly beached looking for a quick reinstall, something you can bet SBC will be poised to provide.


I can't speak for Bruce's situation, but in San Jose, if you're using a competitive ISP, (e.g., not the SBC/PBI inhouse ISP arm), you get two bills. a bill from your ISP for "internet access", and a fee rolled onto the bill of the POTS line the DSL is a "Service" on.


Also sprach Derek Balling


you've obviously never dealt with the California PUC.

A more useless group more firmly in the pockets of the utilities themselves I have never seen.


I've never dealt with the California PUC yet....but in Alaska, it's
called the RCA, for Regulatory Commision of Alaska, and has challenged
the term "clueless". I'm wondering if there are any PUC commision members
with any real understanding ?


Yes. There are some midwest states who do (or at least, "did" when I worked for GTE TelOps) ... they proceeded from the principle of "If a PUC person is dealing with this, whether $COMPLAINANT is right or wrong, $UTILITY is paying us $SOME_HOURLY_RATE for the clerk's time in dealing with it"...

GTE has (or at least had) a "cash buyout" that reps were capable of giving (at the time, it was up to $500, with $1000 on supervisor approval) ... so obviously the hourly "fine/rate" even for claims where the utility was "right" was high enough to justify such. :slight_smile:


Perhaps, but if they try to pull that crap in Ohio, they'll get spanked
by PUCO. (Again.)