voip is great, but…
it requires a large amount of bandwidth, generally, and it has a hollow voice quality. also, it can be subject to dropouts occasionally, and when your internet is out, your phone is out also.
step carefully. and remember the engineers acronym for the usually better eq. KISS - keep it simple, stupid.
erich
*hating the ambulance chaisers also*

As far as taking the cake on SUCKING, SBC takes it hands down. I moved back to Michigan from Florida I had yet the chance to experience their high standard of customer disservice AGAIN! I had Verizon which used to be GTE. I hated it, but i became to understand that Verizon just bought GTE’s mess. Verizon has been working diligently to replace GTE’s crappy technology. I commend them for that! Thank you Verizon! You’re truly improving and you wil show who rules in the telacommunications industry.

Anyway, back to SBC. I have ALWAYS had crappy service from these idiots. I am refering to SBC Michigan in particular. Before deregulation of local service, they had a very very BAD ego problem. Basically SBC had you by the balls. You either accepted “service” from them or you just didn’t have a phone. Since deregulation, not much has changed.

I moved from Florida to my new apartment. It took them FOUR trips to my new residence to FINALLY get my service running. This structure has been in existence for 50 years and does not have any additional lines ran through it. They even had the nerve to tell me they might charge me for having to do premises work. LOL! Ok…I’m sure they would have no troubles disconnecting my phone if I didn’t pay the bill LOL!

Still having the bitter taste in my mouth from yet another disservice by SBC, I decided to switch my local service to MCI. Things were ok with MCI but SBC wooed me back with better pricing. HAHHAHA service still sucks.

I am in the process of moving back to Florida….decided to have my number listed in the book this time. Figured I’d save a few dollars before the move. What a mistake. Within 48 hours of switching back to SBC, I was bombared with telemarketing calls…to the tune of 8-10 a day. Mind you, new directories had already been printed 2 months ago and distributed.

SBC obviously gets kick backs for selling your number to telemarketers! I am SOOOOOOOOOOO happy I will be ditching these idiots They have done nothing but make me pay for headaches!

For those who are NOT in the know, SBC has merged with what is left of AT&T. I heard from an AT&T employee directly, that bought the mainder of AT&T for the AT&T name. I guess SBC thinks they will “cash in” on the AT&T name. Problem folks is…you WILL receive sub standard service and you will be served with major attitude.

For those who have LEFT SBC and are now with another carrier, you made the right choice. Don’t let SBC woo you with any too good to believe offers. The offers are just that! The service is still the same from SBC, DEPLORABLE!

Anyone thinking of signing up with AT&T CallVantage, DSL beware…another one of SBC’s subsidiaries. I will eat 10,000 miles of Verizon’s shit before I would ever think of going back to SBC!

Sincerely,

James Helmer

jimhelmer@aol.com

I signed SBC DSL service. It costs me about 50 dollars a month. I have to pay a phone line and DSL fee. (The phone line is meaningless to me because I have a cell phone.) Besides, for setting up, the modem equipment cost $100.

After 11 months, I moved out and disconnected. Then I found that I have been charged $200 “Early Termination Fee”. I complained to them and their reply made me crazy.

I didn’t know that until they took $200 bucks from my bank. The representative didn’t inform me when I tell them that I had to disconnected. I didn’t sign anything when I hooked up. I didn’t stop the payment, because as an international student, I can’t run the risk of legal issues.

Now I am using Cable DSL. I only purchased the modem in Circuit City for about $60 (after rebate). Monthly fee is $35. (The fee will be $43 after 6 months.) Absolutely no commitment is required. It’s much much faster than phone DSL. The phone DSL is outdated, and it should not exist in the market.

I hate SBC. It sucks.

Bottom line: Don’t use phone DSL and don’t work with SBC.

I agree that SBC sucks big time. Their service is always dished out with a big attitude. (Why is that?) I complained 3 times to the local BBB, and each time got a rambling letter from some uneducated SBC rep that did not address my complaint at all. And then they put some notes on their computer about me, so that as soon as I call them up for service, they look through their notes and their tone changes to PURE HATE. I’ve complained about this treatement, even wrote a letter to the local President of SBC. They don’t care because they have a total monopoly in my city! There is no one else you can get a dial tone from!

To top it off, their repair service is lazy and lies to customers. They don’t turn your phone on when they promise, and then they blame it on your apartment building. This has happened to me every, single time, I move. Three days later, they finally turn it on and then charge me for a visit they never made. THEY LIE. To top it all off, the repair men called me four times AND HUNG UP ON ME when the phone finally got turned on. My landlords have all said this is very common with them. My landlords have said their repairmen are lazy and liars. But if I tell this to one of the customer service reps. she hangs up on me.

I can’t tell you how many times I have been placed on permanent hold to listen to music just because the reps don’t like what they hear about their company. The last one said, “How dare you talk about MY COMPANY that way!” and hung up on me.

SBC needs to be taken down a notch. BAD.

sbc is very shady, you know they put that 200 penalty in small print so most will not notice that if you cancel even 11 month into your service, you be billed this amount still. i mean they treat people like their stupid and like to hide the fact that they like to lure you in with low prices, and if you are disatisfied for any reason later even if the service is crap. you must be us unconditionally. i’m sure more people hate sbc they they do hate me because of their unfair practice. it is not about satisfying consumer it is about controlling them through any means. I gotta have broadband, but I don’t want to put up their attitude and their sub par service
big corporation are all about control and they tend to get meaner as they grow bigger.
what’s funny is that i asked the csr if I can cancel without recurring any extra charges and he said no, but after a month 200.00 came! wtf? is that crazy or what? so then I signed for another years of services asked if they would remove that charges and they agreed………… voila! 30 x 12 = 360 + 12 x 2.48= 389.76 that’s 6 month of service had i not agree to another years of service. yes they suck because after 1 year it will revert to 59.99 + 4.96 FUSF woohoo! Why don’t they give me a break and just let me stay forever at 29.95 at this speed? when it’s time to renew, I have two choice, to cancel service or to renew at their new stupid price of 31.99 for 6 months then 39.99 after… what a turn off :(
what can i say? but I guess it would stay at 39.99 indefnitely, that is the only good thing.

ps - my suggestion? Comcast (or basic phone+dsl no contract) and VOIP (packet8.net or vonage.com).

sbc is the worst possible provider one can imagine. after two full years’ of subscription, sbc tricked me into signing up another 1-year contract with a special rate of $26.95. it was a phone conversation and sbc never mailed any printed confirmation to me. as i travelled a lot, i didn’t pay attention to the amount i paid. one day, i discovered that sbc has been charging me the full amount of $49.99. the agreed amount of $26.95 was a complete lie. i was so angry about that. and sbc claimed no mistake on their part. they accused me in turn for not having reported the mistake in the first place, and not having kept any written records (something they never sent out). and guess what? they claimed that they had no way to verify what i had signed up.

SCREW SBC!!!!!!!!

Ive been a sbc technician for 26 years, and I can tell everyone that sbc sucks big time. My new superviser hasnt a clue what I do for a living!! The company is run so bad, that if it wasnt a monopoly, it’d go out of business. Management is such a joke. The bottom line is, its designed to make the ceo $$ and not deal with customer satifaction (or employee satifaction for that matter) . Im retiring early cause I cant stand this company any more. I highly recommend that you all boycott sbc, like Im going to.

Maybe this is more info than you wanted, but just to let you know that others are continually battling SWB/SBC/AT&T on other fronts, here is an article that was recently submitted to a telcom magazine:

AT&T: the 800lb Monkey on the Back of Competition
By Paul J. Stautzenberger
February 20, 2006

SBC Communications, Inc., which now calls itself AT&T, has once again gained the status of Premier Communications Monopoly. Even the recent Dallas case of Southwestern Bell Telephone, L.P. vs CBS, LLC, et. al., where the Jury award of $350,000 in attorney’s fees against the colossal despot fails to slow this behemoth in its crusade to regain its old kingdom and literally destroy anyone that gets in their way.1 AT&T hired ���Texas Super Lawyer��� Barry F. McNeil,2 Kathleen Beasley, and Bill Morrison of Haynes & Boone, LLP, Dallas, Texas, with in-house counsel Javier Aguilar and Paul A. Drummond of AT&T, San Antonio, Texas. CBS, LLC and three other defendants3 were represented by Sean T. Hamada of Sean T. Hamada, P.C., and Bill Camp of Camp Trial Group, both from Dallas, Texas. In January of this year, after a week long trial in which AT&T spent an estimated $2 million in attorney’s fees in an alleged effort to recover $250 thousand from CBS, the Jury just didn’t buy it. The lawsuit was seen for what it was: AT&T’s attempt to teach their competitors the lesson that David should not to mess with this 800lb Goliath. In other words, not even ���Super Lawyers��� and millions of dollars can hide the fact that AT&T tries to win, not with fair competition, but rather with shear size and might.

‘Ma Bell’ the Grand Ole Monopoly
Monopoly and AT&T have been synonymous terms for nearly a century. When you think of telephones, the first person that pops to mind is Alexander Graham Bell who invented the telephone on Mar 10, 1876.4 In 1885, the Bell Telephone Company formed the original American Telephone and Telegraph Company.5 When Bell’s patents began to expire in 1893, American entrepreneurial spirit created the independent telephone industry.6 By 1903, free and open competition had put 2 million phones into service verses the 1.2 million in service by ‘Ma Bell’, the maternal nickname of Bell’s telephone system.7 In a single decade, private enterprise was able to garner a larger customer base than Bell. Yet, that is turned around when an aggressive acquisition program put in place by AT&T CEO Theodore Vail, reminiscent of a Mafia protection scam, and brings AT&T under investigation by the Justice Department. This results in AT&T settling its first federal anti-trust suit by becoming a government-sanctioned monopoly in 1913.8 The Kingsbury Commitment as this settlement was called, separated the telegraph monopoly from the telephone monopoly on the idea that industry specific mini-monopolies were better than one huge single monopoly.9 Vail saw telecommunications as a ���natural monopoly���.10 Vail’s dream was realized, and
also the death of competition in the telephone industry.

Microwaves verses Copper Wire
1934 sees AT&T placed under the newly established Federal Communications Commission.11 By this time, AT&T owns four out of every five telephones in the country, its long distance network ties together the country’s telephone system and nearly every major city is served by a Bell telephone company.12 By the end of the following decade, the Justice Department is filing anti-trust charges against the giant telephone company for the second time.13 In 1956, AT&T settles it’s second anti-trust suit bringing it back into ���telephone industry��� only business activity.14 That entrepreneurial
spirit that America is known for world-wide makes a breakthrough again, when private enterprises begin suing for fair competition before the FCC. In 1959, the FCC’s Above 890 decision found that an adequate number of microwave frequencies were available to serve both common carrier and private networks.15 This led to the famous Carterfone Decision where the FCC affirming the right of telephone users to connect private communications equipment to the AT&T network.16 Competition once again begins in 1969, after nearly 6 decades of monopoly, when Microwave Communications of America (now known as MCI) is granted a license to install and operate an interstate microwave link between Chicago and St. Louis.17

Death of ‘Ma Bell’
Yet, ���Ma Bell��� didn’t intend on giving up their guaranteed profit machine without a fight. The year 1974 brought federal anti-trust suits by MCI and the Justice Department against AT&T for violations of the Sherman Anti-trust Act.18 MCI won their massive Anti-trust case against AT&T in 1980.19 The Justice Department, however, continued their suit. On January 8, 1982, the Consent Decree was entered into between DOJ and AT&T, thus settling AT&T’s third major anti-trust case with the government.20 The settlement provided for the divestiture plan where AT&T Long Lines (long distance services) would be separated from the local Bell operating companies (local phone services).21 U.S. District Judge Harold Greene, who had presided over the DOJ suit against AT&T, entered the Modified Final Judgment effective January 1, 1984 whereby AT&T and the ���Baby Bells��� would be broken up into separate companies.22 In the MFJ, telephone users would be allowed to select and access any long distance company that they wanted. Competition began to
explode with the number of long distance companies growing by the day.

Rise and Fall of Public Payphones
Pay telephone stations preceded the invention of the pay phone and existed as early as 1878. These stations were supervised by telephone company attendants or agents (such as an employee in a hotel where a station might be located) who collected the money due after people made their calls.23 The first public coin telephone was installed by inventor William Gray at a bank in Hartford, Conn in 1889. It was a “postpay” machine (coins were deposited after the call was placed).24 Necessity being the mother of invention, Almon Strowger, an undertaker, patented his automatic switching system in 1891 to prevent the operator from directing business to his competitors.25 The Western Electric No. 5 Coin Collector, the first automatic “prepay” station, went into use in Chicago in 1898.26 The depositing of coins before placing a call would gradually become the norm in pay phones until the introduction of “dial tone first” service in 1966. By 1902, there were 81,000 pay telephones in the United States.27 After the 1913 Kingsbury commitment, the independent pay telephone industry came to an end. All pay telephones would be operated by ���The Phone Company���. Jump forward to Judge Greene’s MFJ in 1984 when the independent payphone industry is reborn.28

Payphones Create Competition
One of the early companies to enter the payphone industry was a company called Canyon Services, Inc. Even though AT&T had technically separated from the Bell operating companies, payphones still had AT&T selected as the long distance carrier. Judge Greene’s order included the rights of the businesses where payphones were located to choose any long distance carrier they wanted. Companies like Canyon Services entered into pre-subscription agreements with small businesses that created the ability to collectively bargain with different long distance companies.29 The businesses then got to share in the revenues that payphones generated, effectively being compensated for having a public payphone at their business.

Beginning of the Long Battle
Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (now AT&T again) attempted to stall and prevent other carriers from being selected for SWB payphones. In 1993, Canyon Services sued SWB in the case styled Canyon Services, Inc. vs Southwestern Bell Telephone Company. The two companies negotiated a deal to facilitate future business, and the lawsuit was settled under confidential terms.30 Charles Sullivan, then Canyon Services Vice President of Sales, saw on the face of the giant that no concept of fair competition would be allowed. ���The deal we made was an oral agreement, which is still a contract, but now it would be a he said���she said argument,��� said Sullivan.31 SWB reneged on their agreement, and Canyon Services business would never recover. This would be the beginning of a long personal battle for Sullivan.

Private Payphones Create Innovations
In 1991, Charles Sullivan, Sonny Coleman, and Larry Fuqua, all of whom had been associates at Canyon Services, formed a Texas independent payphone company called Payphone Providers, Inc. Payphone Providers would install, operate, collect, repair and maintain their own payphones on business’ properties. They got their start by offering payphones to businesses that SWB had not wanted to put payphones. ���Using technology called ‘Smart Phones’, we were able to constantly monitor our payphones via a computer network,��� recalls Sullivan.32 This innovation meant that Payphone Providers could respond to problems at the phone, such as a coin jam, much faster than SWB could. It also meant that they could offer lower rates than SWB. ���When SWB was still charging $2.15 for one minute to call 30 miles away, we offered the public the rate of $1 for four minutes to call anywhere in the USA,��� Sullivan touts.33 Without borrowing a single cent, the owners of Payphone Providers grew their business to $500,000 in annual sales. But this growth was countered with SWB’s monopoly tactics at every turn, as Payphone Providers still had to buy access to the telephone network from SWB. Sullivan and partners finally threw in the towel and sold their company in 1995.

A New Territory Opens Up
After the 1984 divestiture of AT&T, each State’s regulatory agencies decided when and how independent payphone providers would enter the market. Oklahoma was one of the last States to decide. The Oklahoma Corporation Commission held hearings in 1996 to determine who would be licensed to do business as a payphone provider in their state. The very first such company was Coinlink, LLC.34 Coinlink, LLC was formed when Sullivan located numerous partners to help raise capital to fund a payphone company in Oklahoma. Southwestern Bell reacted to Congress’ Telecommunications Act of 1996 with a whole new tactic that they called the ���95 payphone blitz���, which was to ���stop the bleeding��� and in a euphemism that only can come from a monopoly giant, to ���keep Bessy the cash cow’s milk flowing.��� This maneuver was to cajole businesses with SWB payphones to enter into long term exclusive agreements to keep the business from switching to a more modern payphone company until well into the 21st century. This was done in Missouri, Oklahoma, Kansas, Arkansas and Texas, the five states that SWB controlled at the time, but curiously Ameritech did not institute this practice until after they were acquired by SWB. In Oklahoma this began before any other independent company was yet licensed to operate. In Illinois where Ameritech operated, the ratio of phone company owned payphones to independants was 50:50. In Missouri, just across the state line where SWB
operated, it was 80:20. So, if small businesses didn’t agree with SWB they would loose their payphone service altogether. When many new Oklahoma payphone companies entered the market and discovered that their ability to compete was effectively crushed, they joined together and sued SWB in Federal District Court. The other payphone companies involved were Telecore Communications, Inc, Advanced Communications, Inc., Americall, Oklahoma
Heartland Payphone Services, Owens Communications, Payphone Plus, LLC, Redlands Communications, Inc., and Sooner Telecommunications, Inc.

Goliath in the Court Room
The attorneys Robert D. Edinger, Jonathan E. Miller and Linda G. Kaufmann of Edinger & Blakely, P.C. represented the payphone companies in a match that could have been taken from the script of the movie A Civil Action with John Travolta where the lawyers are nearly bankrupted by tricks and maneuvering of SWB’s attorney’s.35 But, unlike the movie this case styled Telecor Communications. Inc., et. al. vs Southwestern Bell Telephone Company was argued until 2000 when the Jury awarded $7.2 million in damages to the independent payphone companies. Under Federal Anti-trust Statutes, the Jury’s award is trebled to $21.6 million. SWB, now represented by Donald L. Flexner, Scott E. Gant, and David A. Barrett of Bois,
Schiller & Flexner, LLP of Washington, D.C. (the same firm that represented Al Gore before the Supreme Court in the 2000 Presidential Election dispute) and D. Kent Meyers and Richard C. Ford of Crowe & Dunlevy, Oklahoma City, OK, appealed to the 10th Ciruit Court of Appeals.36 When the 10th Circuit affirmed, SWB sought review by the Supreme Court who refused to hear the case. SWB’s final payout to the Oklahoma payphone providers including interest and attorney’s fees exceeded $30 million. Afterwards Sullivan says he had a conversation with SWB’s Vice President Mark Keopp where ���Keopp told me that Bell will not change anything��� as a result of the Oklahoma lawsuit.37 SWB spokesman Walt Sharp said “SBC continues to believe that we have acted properly in all matters related to payphone competition in Oklahoma and everywhere else in our region of coverage.”38 They just don’t get it. SWB is found guilty by a Jury, fined $30 million dollars, and they still believe they can do no wrong.

Bell Does It Again
Sullivan and new partners start over in Texas. They formed Comchoice, Inc. in 1997 and begin installing payphones throughout central Texas. Soon after, they were approached by Houston based Clipper Telecommunications, Inc., a company that wanted to leave the payphone market. Comchoice ended up buying Clipper in late 1997.39 Comchoice grew to over 1600 payphones in Texas in record pace. However, true to SWB and Keopp’s word SWB used their
dirty-trick monopoly tactics to target the new companies that Sullivan was involved in. In 2001, Comchoice and 16 other Texas independent payphone providers sued SWB in the case styled Comchoice, Inc. et. al. vs Southwestern Bell Telephone Company.40 After the case began, 3 more payphone companies joined the suit. In addition to Comchoice and Clipper, Extra Effort Payphones, Teletrust, Inc., Eagle Payphones, Inc., U.S. Tele-Coin Corporation, Southwestern Tel Com, Inc., L & J Enterprises, Langkop Communications, The Vending Equipment Network, Telenational, Inc., Coin Telecom Systems, Communications Systems International, Inc., N-Tel Communications, Inc., Payphone Management Company, Com-Tech Systems, National Payphones Company, Inc., Public Pay Phone Systems, D & B Telephone, Inc., and Robert Nicholas were payphone companies in the lawsuit. This time the independent payphone companies were represented by Steve Susman, Barry Barnett, Mark Evetts (now a partner with Berg & Androphy), JJ Hopkins, and Michael Fritz of Susman Godfrey, L.P., Houston, Texas, John R. MacLean and Dan Boulware of Maclean & Boulware, Cleburne, Texas, and Curtis E. Pritchard of
Lummus, Hallman, Pritchard & Baker, P.C., Cleburne, Texas. SWB was again represented by Donald L. Flexner of Bois, Schiller & Flexner, LLP of Washington, D.C., and also by Barry F. McNeil, Ronald W. Breaux, and Ashley Brown of Haynes and Boone, LLP, Dallas, Texas and J. Greg Coontz of Law Offices of J. Greg Coontz, Burleson, Texas. This case lasted until the end of 2003. In the meantime, Comchoice and Clipper were both forced to sell all the payphones that they had installed.41 On December 16, 2003, the Texas independent payphone providers settled their suit under confidential terms.42

Monkey on the Back
During the Comchoice case, Sullivan was asked to reveal every company that he had stock or ownership in. CBS, LLC was another Texas pre-paid calling card company that Sullivan owned a minority interest in. CBS also offered payphones in specialty locations such as Half-way houses under contract with the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, the Toyota Center for the Houston Rockets and Aeros, and Reliant Park for the Texans and the Houston Live Stock Show & Rodeo. On December 18, 2003, just two days after settling the Comchoice case, SWB started its retaliation against Sullivan (even though Sullivan wasn’t involved in CBS’ daily operations) by disconnecting dial-tone on CBS payphones. For each payphone that SWB subsequently would ���repair��� by reconnecting dial-tone, they would disconnect another payphone. Back in July 2003, Sullivan had talked with a number of Kansas and Missouri payphone companies to see if SWB was treating them the same way. In fact they were, and in March 2004, 11 payphone companies from Texas, Missouri and Kansas filed suit against SWB for anti-trust violations. The case was styled Superior Payphones, Ltd. vs Southwestern Bell Telephone Company.43 A month later, in April 2004, CBS joined the suit against SWB. The payphone companies involved in this suit are Superior Payphones, Ltd., Lindeman Communications, Coyote Call Payphones, Sunset Enterprises, Incorporated, Precision Communications, KC Telecom, Inc., Payphone Concepts, Inc., Joltran Communications, Corp., Tel-Pro, Inc., Commercial Communications Services, LLC, and CBS, LLC. The independent payphone companies this time were represented by Tony Buzbee, JJ Hopkins and Christopher K. Johns of The Buzbee Law Firm, Galveston, Texas and Aaron I. Vela of Law Offices of Aaron I. Vela, P.C., Edinberg, Texas. SWB was represented by Donald L. Flexner, Scott E. Gant, and Hershel A. Wancjer of Bois, Schiller & Flexner, LLP of Washington, D.C., Richardo G. Cedillo of Davis Cedillo & Mendoza, Inc., San Antonio, Texas, Carlos Guerra of Guerra & Moore, McAllen, Texas, and Javier Aguilar and Paul A. Drummond of Southwestern Bell Telephone, L.P. (now called AT&T), San Antonio, Texas.44

The Retaliation of the 800lb Monkey
On learning that CBS joined the Superior suit, SWB filed a retaliatory lawsuit against CBS, Comchoice, Clipper Telecommunications, against Charles Sullivan personally, against The Buzbee Law Firm and against JJ Hopkins personally in Dallas, Texas in the case styled Southwestern Bell
Telephone, L.P. vs CBS, LLC, et. al.45 Note that this suit is not a counter-suit against the CBS, but rather a strategy taken by SWB to warn attorneys not to represent Sullivan or any company that he has any ownership interest in regardless of how small. Sullivan, Comchoice, Clipper
Telecommunications, and CBS now retain new counsel, a former CLEC owner and solo practitioner, Sean T. Hamada of Sean T. Hamada, P.C., Dallas, Texas. (A CLEC is short for Competitive Local Exchange Carrier, a telephone company that competes with an incumbent local exchange carrier such as SWB.)46 Prior to trial, Hamada assembles a trial team, including trial lawyer Bill Camp of Camp Trial Group, Dallas, Texas, to assist him against SWB���s team of lawyers Barry F. McNeil, Kathleen Beasley, and Bill Morrison of Haynes & Boone, LLP, Dallas, Texas, and in-house counsel Javier Aguilar and Paul A. Drummond of AT&T, San Antonio, Texas. After a week long Jury trial in January 2006, where AT&T spends an estimated $2 million in attorneys fees in an alleged effort to recover $250 thousand from CBS and Sullivan personally, CBS and Sullivan defeat all of SWB���s claims and the jury awards them $350K for legal fees. Claims against The Buzbee Firm and JJ Hopkins are denied by the Judge and never make it to the Jury. Haynes & Boone���s legal fees through December of 2005 were over $854,000 alone.47 These fees most likely doubled through conclusion of trial at the end of January 2006. SWB claimed the law firm of Bois, Schiller & Flexner had also billed them over $700,000 in defending SWB from CBS in the Superior case through the same time frame. In contrast, Sean Hamada and Bill Camp’s legal fees combined were only $300 thousand through trial. ���Clearly SWB summoned its vast resources to craft and pursue a retaliation lawsuit designed to make Sullivan and CBS spend money, time, and effort defending frivolous claims, disrupt the anti-trust lawsuit against SWB in Hidalgo County [the Superior case], and to drive CBS out of business,��� says Hamada. ���That message seemed to resonate with the jury,��� Hamada recalled.48 While SWB lost in almost every count, they did succeed in driving CBS out of the payphone
business. To survive through trial and contend with SWB’s repeated attacks and monopoly tricks on CBS payphones, CBS had sold or was in the process of selling all but 25 payphones by the time they made it to trial.

A Ray of Hope
To date, the Superior case in Hidalgo County, Texas has not yet gone to trial. All of the complaining independent payphone providers are small ‘mom & pop’ operations. Most all of them are less then 500 payphones each. They include 2 Texas companies, 5 from Missouri, and 4 from Kansas. The new AT&T only continues the monopoly tactics they were found guilty of in Oklahoma when they still called themselves Southwestern Bell Telephone Company:
1. Saturating market by placing phones every where they can;
2. Imposing long term restrictive contracts on small business owners;
3. Using its advantage as the incumbent phone service provider (local dial-tone) to lock up the best locations;
4. Creating a maze of arbitrary and discriminatory rules and procedures with which location owners and independent payphone providers’ (IPP) have to comply with in order to attempt to get SWB dial-tone service and sometimes SWB payphones removed;
5. Using IPP’s requests for service and accompanying letters of agency as a sales lead to try to convince the customer to not switch service, even though this is in direct conflict with the regulations set forth by FCC under Telecom Act of 1996;
6. Using ���dirty trick’s��� such as removing concrete pads and posts and cutting wires short to make it more expensive for competition to install new service;
7. Using different means of transmitting digits to secure dial around compensation where SWB collects over 90% of their dial around and other companies can only hope to collect about 40-50%.

When this case goes to trial, AT&T and it’s million dollar ���Super Lawyers��� will have to convince a Hidalgo County Jury that the profits of a giant are more important than the fair competition of the small businesses on whose shoulders America was built. The Dallas County Jury didn’t think so, and neither will the Hidalgo County Jury.

But Hope for How Long?
On January 1, 1984, AT&T was broken up into 8 different companies because of violations of U.S. Anti-trust laws.49 Of those companies, only Bell South remains. Qwest bought U.S. West. Verizon is the result of the merger of NYNEX, Bell Atlantic, GTE and MCI. And, the new AT&T is the recombination of AT&T Long Distance, Southwestern Bell, Ameritech, and Pacific Telesis Group, making it once again the largest phone company in the world. The Verizon & MCI merger along with the SBC & AT&T merger recreate a majority of the company that the Justice Department back in 1972 tried to break apart. Before, the monopoly was just with telephones, now it will be with telephones, cell phones, cable, and internet. Our justice system in the United States has laws specifically to prevent unfair competition and monopolization. Enforcement is expensive and difficult as the big companies have deep pockets. Sullivan commented after the Dallas trial, “The last 2 years have been particularly difficult on myself and my family. Bell’s
tactics clearly were to disqualify my lawyers by naming them defendants, and forcing me to acquire outside counsel.��� Sullivan further lamented, ���My family’s savings have been wiped out by the attorney’s fees. Our only hope is to recover the attorney’s fees awarded in Dallas County and for a successful trial in Hidalgo County.��� Sullivan was certain however that SWB would appeal any verdicts, meaning it may be years before he sees any relief even if he does win. As for Sullivan’s future in the payphone business, ���CBS, LLC will not be in the payphone business when that trial takes place in Hidalgo as we have had to sell almost all of our assets to pay the bills.”50 Without competition, there can be no freedom; without competition there can be no hope.

1 Southwestern Bell Telephone, L.P. v. CBS, LLC et. al., Cause No. 04-04222; 44th District Court, Dallas County, Texas.
2 Bradley B. Clark, ���Texas Law Blog���, Google, 2003, URL http://texaslaw.blogspot.com/archives/2003_10_01_texaslaw_archive.html#106735684212528432
3 Southwestern Bell Telephone, L.P. v. CBS, LLC et. al., ibid; CBS, LLC, Comchoice, Inc., Clipper Telecommunications, Inc. and Charles Sullivan were represented by Sean T. Hamada, P.C.; and at trial Comchoice, Inc., and Clipper Telecommunications, Inc. were represented by Camp Trial Group.
4 Robert Jones, ���Milestones in Telegraphic History���, W5TU, 1987, URL http://members.tripod.com/morse_telegraph_club/images/newpage1.htm
5 Charles L. Brown, “Encyclopedia of Telecommunications”, (Marcel Dekker, Inc., 1991)
6 ���GTE: The Largest Independent���, Verizon Communications, 2004, URL http://investor.verizon.com/profile/history/history_004.html
7 ���People’s Guide to the Telecommunications Act of 2006���, Alliance for Community Media, 2005, URL http://www.cctv.org/cmrtimeline.htm
8 ���The History of Verizon Communications���, Verizon Communications, 2003, URL http://investor.verizon.com/profile/history/verizonhistory.pdf
9 Adam D. Thierer , ���UNNATURAL MONOPOLY: CRITICAL MOMENTS IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE BELL SYSTEM MONOPOLY ���, The Cato Journal, Volume 14 Number 2 (Fall 1994), URL http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cjv14n2-6.html
10 ���AT&T���, Caslon Analytics, 2004, URL http://www.ketupa.net/att.htm
11 Robert Jones, ibid.
12 David Massey, ���Timeline of the Legal History of Telecommunications and the Divestiture of AT&T���, 2003, URL http://www.bellsystemmemorial.com/att_divestiture.html
13 Carl Bybee, ���Systems Development Models���, U of Oregon, 1998, URL http://jcomm.uoregon.edu/~cbybee/j201/models.htm
14 David Massey, ibid.
15 Ibid.
16 Butrica, Andrew J., Ed., ���SP-4217 Beyond the Ionosphere���, NASA History Office, 1997, URL http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4217/contents.htm
17 D. Hopper, ���Telephone Tutorial: The History of Telephony & the Creation of the Bell Co.���, 2002, URL
http://128.220.215.178/telecommunications/770.512/Common_files/TelephonyBasics/ TelephoneTutorial/tutor.htm
18 Ibid.
19 Butrica, Andrew J., Ed., Ibid.
20 Carl Bybee, ibid.
21 D. Hopper, ibid.
22 Ibid.
23 ���Highlights in Pay Phone History���, AT&T, 1998, URL http://www.att.com/news/1091/911002.csa.html
24 Ibid.
25 ���Operator - Get off the line!���, 2003, URL http://www.connected-earth.com/Journeys/Howitworks/
Telephone/Networks/AlmonBrownStrowger/almonbrownstrowger(1839-1902).htm
26 ���Highlights in Pay Phone History���, AT&T, 1998, URL http://www.att.com/news/1091/911002.csa.html
27 Ibid.
28 Implementation of the Pay Telephone Reclassification and Compensation Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 96-128 and No. 91-35, (September 20, 1996); Report and Order, 11 FCC 20541 (1996), p. 10.
29 Sonny Coleman, President, Canyon Services, Inc., Canyon Lake, Texas, January 20, 2006.
30 Ibid.
31 Charles Sullivan, Canyon Lake, Texas, January 20, 2006.
32 Ibid.
33 Ibid.
34 Charles Sullivan, Canyon Lake, Texas, January 30, 2006.
35 ���A Civil Action���, Internet Movie Database Inc., 2006, URLhttp://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120633/.
36 Telecor Communs., Inc. v. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co., 305 F.3d 1124.
37 Charles Sullivan, ibid.
38 ���SBC loses appeal on $20M antitrust settlement���, American City Business Journals, Inc., 2003, URL http://www.bizjournals.com/sanantonio/stories/2003/05/19/daily5.html
39 Charles Sullivan, ibid.
40 ComChoice, Inc. et al. v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., Cause No. C-2001-00072, 413th Judicial District, Johnson County, Texas.
41 Charles Sullivan, ibid.
42 ComChoice, Inc. et al. v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., ibid.
43 Superior Payphones, Ltd. vs Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, Cause No. C-416-04-B; 93rd Judicial District, Hidalgo County, Texas.
44 Superior Payphones, Ltd. vs Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, ibid.
45 Southwestern Bell Telephone, L.P. v. CBS, LLC et. al., ibid.
46 ���CLEC���, Webopedia, 2006, URL http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/C/CLEC.html
47 Southwestern Bell Telephone, L.P. v. CBS, LLC et. al., ibid.
48 Sean T. Hamada, Dallas, Texas, January 24, 2006.
49 D. Hopper, ���Telephone Tutorial: The History of Telephony & the Creation of the Bell Co.���, 2002, URL
http://128.220.215.178/telecommunications/770.512/Common_files/TelephonyBasics/ TelephoneTutorial/tutor.htm
50 Charles Sullivan, ibid.

Add me to the list. Not only will I never use SBC again, but I’ll be emailing and blogging to everyone I know to let them know what happened.

My husband and I signed up for Yahoo! SBC DSL in February of 2005. When i spoke with the sales person, I specifically asked if I would be charged the termination of service fee if I moved to a new area where SBC doesn’t offer service. I was told that no, I would not, because obviously, if I moved to a new location that didn’t offer SBC I would have no way to continue the services. SBC had a good price for DSL, so we signed up.

Flash forward to December of 2005. We’ve bought a new house and are moving. I call SBC and find out that they don’t offer service in our new location, so I sign up with Sprint.

Now, in March, I get a notice from SBC that they are sending us to collections because we have not paid $107.46 of our “termination fee.” (Apparently we overpaid our last bill and they took that payment to put toward the $200)

I call and explain the situation and am told that management will have to deal with it and that someone will call me back within 48 hours. 96 hours later, with no call, I call SBC again. I’m told that the bill has been reviewed and it stands because their TOS states that the only way the termination fee will be waived is if I’ve moved to an SBC area where they don’t offer DSL.

In other words…who cares if you moved to Egypt, you still owe us $200.

What makes this worse is that we had just two months left on our account at $25 a month. I would have happily paid out the last two months worth of service and called it quits, but they wouldn’t even give me that as an option.

What makes this worse is that the first person I spoke to when I called back today, Bianca, was rude to me, interrupted me multiple times and refused to transfer me to a manager until the third time that I asked. The final person I spoke with, “Mrs. Jackson” basically said “well I’m sorry that you were told that, but it doesn’t matter.”

So be aware. Not only does SBC have a ridiculous termination policy, but apparently their sales staff is not beyond lying to you in order to get you signed up.

so, here’s what i know………

like (it seems) almost everyone else, i’ve had lots of probs with the SBC / AT&T conglomerate. when i first moved back to Ohio from PA, i was shocked to learn that in my new neighborhood, there was only one choice for a phone line. (yeah, as others have noted — whatever happened to the “end of the monopoly”??) so, i signed up with Ameritech. service sucked, and their was so much interference on the line half the time that you couldn’t even really have a phone conversation. as soon as i had the option to switch services, i did. the only thing to switch to was SBC. hate their billing — always seems to come out to more than they originally quoted, and i had to change my local plan a few times before it settled down — but that doesn’t seem much different than any other phone company. (what evil forces are behind this whole mess? smells distinctly like gov’t contract work…..) they had a deal on SBC Yahoo! DSL when i switched, so i signed up for it.

didn’t have any real probs with the DSL once i got it up and running — originally, on a Compaq laptop, running Windows 2000. always hated the obtrusive and clumsy SBC Yahoo! Browser, but was able to connect via EnterNet and not have to deal with the annoying Yahoo-ized version of Internet Explorer — as if IE isn’t bad enough on it’s own! so, i’ve beasically been happily running Firefox under Win 2000 with the DSL link on the laptop — and it’s run fine. but, a week ago, my son got a brand-spanking new Compaq Presario. So, we configure the network connection using XP’s connection wizard — click on “connect” and all looks fine……..fine, that is, until we launch a browser, or ANY other application tries to access the connection to the web — BLAMMO! — the entire system freezes. as in no mouse response, no keyboard response — can’t even Ctrl-Alt-Del and Task Manage our way out of it — have to do a hard physical shutdown of the system and reboot. even the SBC Yahoo software causes this behavior — after the initial set up, after all, it has to access the DSL connection, too — FREEZE-O!

pain in the ass, I’ll tell you. one call to tech support — typical robotic walk-through by someone in India (no offense), during which they basically have us reboot in safe mode, disable all devices, reboot, see the same behavior, blame the OS install, and have us restore the system from the handy built-in restore partition that comes on the PC. and — same behavior. DLS connects, luanch browser, system frozen. call HP tech support — we go through the same thing. ultimately, they recommend we restore from the CDs (which no longer are shipped with a new box, so I had to pay $20 for them). they arrive in 2 days, though, via FedEx — and we use them — it’s like a 5 hour config! and — same behavior.

anyway — what i learned today was that you should call SALES, not tech support, when you have a problem. there apparently is this “Support Tier Two,” which the first tier support people will not tell you about (though they will recommend that you use their fee tech service — for a flat $79.95, they’ll apparently help you decipher the Kaballah). so, i have an appt to talk with this level 2 dude tonight. we’l see where that goes.

on a lighter note, though, found out that i have a month-by-month DSL contract, so I can cancel at any time (they told me) w/out a penalty. i’m a little wary of that, but if the next round of tech supoprt doesn’t get us online, i’m dropping this SBC biatch and switching to RoadRunner. hell, i don’t need a landline anymore anyways.

I signed SBC DSL service. It costs me about 50 dollars a month. I have to pay a phone line and DSL fee. (The phone line is meaningless to me because I have a cell phone.) Besides, for setting up, the modem equipment cost $100.

After 11 months, I moved out and disconnected. Then I found that I have been charged $200 “Early Termination Fee”. I complained to them and their reply made me crazy.

I didn’t know that until they took $200 bucks from my bank. The representative didn’t inform me when I tell them that I had to disconnected. I didn’t sign anything when I hooked up. I didn’t stop the payment, because as an international student, I can’t run the risk of legal issues.

Now I am using Cable DSL. I only purchased the modem in Circuit City for about $60 (after rebate). Monthly fee is $35. (The fee will be $43 after 6 months.) Absolutely no commitment is required. It’s much much faster than phone DSL. The phone DSL is outdated, and it should not exist in the market.

I hate SBC. It sucks.

Bottom line: Don’t use phone DSL and don’t work with SBC.