Tauzin-Dingell
Clearinghouse
Fact Sheet 5:
Liar, Liar, SBC's Pants on Fire
----Where's the Competition?
There are two reasons that there is no
local competition today. The first is the documented harm to
competitors and the second is the fact that SBC, the Bell
company that owns three original Bells ---- Southwestern
Bell, Ameritech and Pacific Telesis, as well as SNET,
(Southern New England Telephone) never fulfilled their
stated obligations to compete in 50 major cities by next
year, including other parts of the country, and therefore
other Bell companies. (See page 3 for a complete list.) In
fact, by now, SBC was supposed to be competing in the Miami,
Seattle and Washington. (St. Louis Post-Dispatch
[2/5/99])
"SBC aims to expand to
Boston, Miami, Seattle" "SBC Communications Inc., the No.
2 U.S. local phone company, said Thursday that Boston,
Miami and Seattle will be the first three markets where
it provides services as part of its plan to buy Ameritech
Corp.
"SBC said in May that it will buy
Ameritech, an acquisition currently valued at $81.7
billion, and named 30 U.S. local markets the companies
would enter outside of their home regions under their
"national-local" strategy."
These plans were based on SBC's claim
that they needed to merge with Ameritech, one of the
original Bell companies, to give them more cash for the
undertaking. The Fort Worth Star-Telegram
[12/01/98]
"Stephen Carter, president of
strategic markets, said the plan is contingent on
regulatory approval for SBC's proposed $77.4 billion
purchase of Ameritech Corp., expected to be completed in
the middle of next year."
The merger went through in October
1999 and the first three cities were supposed to be
competitive "within a year" of the deal going through. (St.
Louis Post-Dispatch [2/5/99])
"The three cities named will
be the first targets, with service available within a
year of the purchase, SBC said."
The deal of course went through, yet
SBC has yet to compete in any of the cities mentioned. Had
SBC done this plan, the price for local service should have
decreased because competition would have lowered
prices
However, as we stated back in 1998,
and we repeat today, we believe that SBC decided to pull a
bait and switch --- they told the American public and
regulators that they would give America competition in
exchange for these mergers. Once the deal went through, they
would claim that they could not go forward. They also knew
that no regulator, including the FCC or any other group,
would be able to or want to do anything about this. Any
penalties would simply be the cost of doing
business.
Will the FCC take action?
According to the FCC merger condition SBC is to have 30
markets competitive within 30 months of signing --- October
1999. According to the FCC:
"21.Out-of-Territory
Competitive Entry (National-Local Strategy) Within 30
months from the merger closing, SBC/Ameritech will enter
at least 30 major markets outside of its region as a
facilities-based competitive provider of local services
to business and residential customers. "
However, the FCC did not take their
own conditions seriously. Notice that there are penalties of
$1.2 billion dollars if the company misses to enter the
markets, but it is "voluntary".
"SBC/Ameritech is liable for
voluntary incentive payments of nearly $1.2 billion
dollars if it misses the entry requirements in all 30
markets. This condition will ensure that residential
consumers and business customers outside of
SBC/Ameritech's region benefit from increased
facilities-based local competition."
And we all know that the Bell company
will never pay anything, yet they will have been able to
increase their own market dominance through the Ameritech
merger. SBC once again played the American public for
chumps.
SBC's Planned 50 City Plan to
Offer Local Services, 1998
(Source:
SBC)
|
Markets where the new SBC
plans to compete under the "National-Local"
strategy, ranked by size:
|
Markets in which SBC and
Ameritech currently offer services, ranked by
size:
|
|
|
1. New York
|
1 Los Angeles
|
(SBC)
|
|
2 Philadelphia
|
2 Chicago
|
(AIT)
|
|
3. Boston
|
3 Detroit
|
(AIT)
|
|
4. Washington
|
4. Dallas-Fort
Worth
|
(SBC)
|
|
5. Miami-Ft.
Lauderdale
|
5.Houston
|
(SBC)
|
|
6. Atlanta-
|
6 San Francisco
|
(SBC)
|
|
7. Minneapolis-St.
Paul
|
7. San Diego
|
(SBC)
|
|
8. Phoenix
|
8. St. Louis
|
(SBC)
|
|
9. Baltimore
|
9. Cleveland
|
(AIT)
|
|
10.
Seattle-Everett
|
10. San Jose
|
(SBC)
|
|
11. Denver-Boulder
|
11.Kansas City
|
(SBC)
|
|
12. Pittsburgh
|
12. Sacramento
|
(SBC)
|
|
13. Tampa-St.
Petersburg
|
13. Milwaukee
|
(AIT)
|
|
14. Portland
|
14. San Antonio.
|
(SBC)
|
|
15. Cincinnati
|
15. Indianapolis
|
(AIT)
|
|
16. Slat Lake
City-Ogden
|
16. Columbus, OH
|
(AIT)
|
|
17. Orlando
|
17. Hartford/New
Britain
|
(SBC)
|
|
18. Buffalo
|
18. Oklahoma City
|
(SBC)
|
|
19 New Orleans
|
19.Austin
|
(SBC)
|
|
20.
Nashville-Davidson
|
20.Dayton
|
(AIT)
|
|
21. Memphis
|
|
|
|
22. Las Vegas
|
|
|
|
23. Norfolk -Virginia
Beach
|
|
|
|
24. Rochester
|
|
|
|
25. Greensboro -Winston
-Salem
|
|
|
|
26. Louisville
|
|
|
|
27. Birmingham
|
|
|
|
28. Honolulu
|
|
|
|
29. Providence
-Warwick
|
|
|
|
30. Albany -Schenectady -
Troy
|
|
|
|