# Unbelieveable Arrogance



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

According to information obtained by trade publication CableFAX Daily, BellSouth is
telling builders it may not provision a housing development for phone service if the
builder signs an exclusive deal with a rival for video and broadband. In a letter to
a builder obtained by CableFAX, BellSouth said the "presence of these types of
arrangements with alternate communications providers or infrastructure providers
may affect BellSouth's provision of service to the developments."

A BellSouth spokesperson said commissions and legislative bodies in its territory
are redefining existing carrier of last resort obligations as they apply when exclusive
communications agreements are signed with other providers. BellSouth said it 
recommends any developer considering such an agreement research the current
rules and laws to insure they understand how they might impact a consumer's
choices for service, the company added. More will be in the publication Wednesday.

Info on CFax can be found at: http://www.cableworld.com/cfax.


----------



## jrbdmb (Sep 5, 2002)

Just curious, how can a builder sign "an exclusive deal with a rival for video and broadband"? Can they really set up a deal where one vendor (I presume the local cable comapny) is the only provider allowed?


----------



## BaldEagle (Jun 19, 2006)

Call their bluff. With cell phones and VoIP who need them?


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

BaldEagle said:


> Call their bluff. With cell phones and VoIP who need them?


IMO, BS has shot themselves in the foot...at least I hope so.

heh heh heh...don't need 'em...I'm 100% wireless...haven't
had a landline since 2000. A phone still connected to a wire
is so last century.

My cell is my around the house phone, my cordless around
the neighborhood phone and my anywhere on the planet
phone. It also takes pictures and plays my favorite tunes.

Very nice.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

This makes no sense.

How can you claim to want competition but then be ok with builders signing exclusive agreements?

I normally hate BellSouth... but I side with them on this one.

Cable companies are providing phone service now as well as Internet. BellSouth wants to provide video services in the future... but if a development signs an exclusive agreement with a video provider that would exclude BellSouth from doing that in the future... why should BellSouth run phone lines and put out that expense when they may not be able to market and bundle other services to the customers?

I didn't think the FCC would allow an exclusive agreement like that anyway.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

HDMe said:


> This makes no sense.
> 
> I side with them on this one...why should BellSouth run phone lines and put out that expense
> when they may not be able to market and bundle other services to the customers?


How else can BellSouth expect to compete in the marketplace if they don't show
up? In sports, that would be called a forfeit.

How can BS claim to be concerned about consumers having a "choice" then, in
the same breath, hypocritically threaten to withhold basic telephone service and
forego the possibility of bundling other services?

BellSouth's threat is another form of corporate tyranny. Like a child threatening to
take his 'ball' and go home, taking such an adverse action would be childish, and
certainly not deserving of the solid reputation that BellSouth has worked hard to
build over the years.

Evidently, the inroads being made in voice communications since the advent of
voip and wireless technologies has BellSouth management running scared. I'm
sure it's not easy for a former monoply to escape that monotheistic mindset.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Nick said:


> How else can BellSouth expect to compete in the marketplace if they don't show
> up? In sports, that would be called a forfeit.
> 
> How can BS claim to be concerned about consumers having a "choice" then, in
> ...


I think you missed the point of your own post!

According to what you posted, BellSouth wouldn't be able to provide any video services in that neighborhood because of the exclusive contract to another provider... so why should BellSouth go into that neighborhood with their prospects limited? Knowing that the other providers can provide phone & internet services... why should BellSouth bother trying to compete there when they can't fairly compete?

I think you're arguing on the wrong side here.

BellSouth is asking for full competition in the area... but they aren't getting it... and if they are going to be restricted, I wouldn't go either.

Say you were going to open a book & toy store BUT the mall said you couldn't sell books, just toys because someone else had an exclusive book contract for the mall. Why would you open your store there when half your business couldn't be used? You'd be better off finding a different location to focus your efforts.

Using your sports example... what if your team was told that if you play basketball in the game your team could only shoot three-point shots (no layups or free throws allowed for you) BUT the other team could shoot all available shots. Would you play in the rigged game? Or protest it?


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

Sorry, HD, but it's your assumptions that are incorrect. 

According to the article, the builder would give an exclusive deal with a rival for video
and broadband only. Says nothing about POTS which has always been and will always
be the foundation of BellSouth's business and the cornerstone of any bundled services.
If BS ever hopes to gain a foothold in the subject development and to sell other services,
they have to be there.

In reality, I think BS is bluffing but, still, I don't like the tone of their threat, and frankly, it
wouldn't bother me if they got locked out, but that possibility is probably close to nil due
to the likelyhood of existing laws, regulations or local ordinances that would prohibit the
enforcement of any such exclusive arrangements.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Nick said:


> Sorry, HD, but it's your assumptions that are incorrect.
> 
> According to the article, the builder would give an exclusive deal with a rival for video
> and broadband only. Says nothing about POTS which has always been and will always
> ...


You said it again though... BellSouth would only be able to provide POTS. The rival would be able to provide video, broadband AND phone service. So BellSouth would never be able to grab more customers with its broadband or upcoming video services.

The playing field is not level.

With people opting to have cellphones or VoIP or cable-phone... if all BellSouth can provide in that area is POTS, then they will be severely limited for the future.

POTS is starting to have less and less "need" attached to it as people have increasing options of other ways to communicate.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

HDMe said:


> You said it again though... BellSouth would only be able to provide POTS.


How would they be prevented from providing DSL and other services? Is the builder going to interfere with the technology on the phone wires?

I don't see how the builder can offer an "exclusive" deal to anyone without REFUSING to allow the wires that can carry any service and violating OTARD by refusing to allow satellite dishes and wi-fi antennas.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

James Long said:


> How would they be prevented from providing DSL and other services? Is the builder going to interfere with the technology on the phone wires?
> 
> I don't see how the builder can offer an "exclusive" deal to anyone without REFUSING to allow the wires that can carry any service and violating OTARD by refusing to allow satellite dishes and wi-fi antennas.


I don't see how they could really prevent it either... and don't understand the legality of even proposing such an exclusive agreement. So this might all come down to a miscommunication or something.


----------



## AllieVi (Apr 10, 2002)

Nick said:


> ... Says nothing about POTS which has always been and will always be the foundation of BellSouth's business and the cornerstone of any bundled services. ...


That's been true in the past, but times are changin'.

The future belongs to the companies that deliver broadband services. They will eventually throw in phone service for free, so any company that relies on POTS for its revenue will be toast.

I also don't understand how the exclusivity thing could work. Future owners of the properties will decide what company provides services, not the developer.



HDMe said:


> ...So this might all come down to a miscommunication or something.


Maybe that's the answer.


----------

