March 31, 2005 12:19 PM PST

Phone options expand despite telecom mergers

Related Stories

Google window-shops for VoIP

March 8, 2005

AOL unveils VoIP plans

March 8, 2005

Search giants hear voices

March 7, 2005

Cable raises its voice

March 3, 2005

Merger, shmerger, where's my ESPN phone?

January 31, 2005
As one giant telecom acquisition follows another, consumer groups are crying foul, but new technologies and players are giving people more ways to make phone calls.

The debate follows two major proposed mergers in the telecommunications industry--SBC Communications' bid for AT&T, and Verizon Communications' deal with MCI. The nation's two largest local phone companies would swallow the two biggest long-distance and enterprise-telecom players.


What's new:
Despite a massive wave of consolidation in the telecom industry right now, fresh technologies and a new breed of operators are providing more choices for voice consumers.

Bottom line:
Critics warn that new technology is too expensive and not widely available to provide true competition, but telecom experts say they are being shortsighted because broadband deployments continue to grow at a fast rate.

More on telecom mergers

To consumer advocacy groups such as the Consumer Federation of America and the Consumers Union, the publisher of Consumer Reports, the proposed mergers are a step back to the time when Ma Bell monopolized the market. The major local-phone providers--the Baby Bells--and those supporting the mergers say competition is not a problem. Cable companies are bringing phone service to their broadband data connections via voice over Internet Protocol. Many early adopters are also embracing VoIP through independent providers such as Vonage and Skype. But these options aren't always cheap.

"If these mergers are allowed to occur, we're forcing consumers to pay a lot of money to get the same level of competition they were getting under the 1996 Telecom Act," said Kenneth DeGraff, a policy advocate for the Consumers Union.

However, some consumers are not paying for broadband connections and VoIP to replace regular home phone lines--they're just relying on their cellular phones. The cellular market is also shrinking--Cingular Wireless bought AT&T Wireless and Sprint is buying Nextel Communications. But analysts point out that virtual cell operators like Virgin Mobile and Metro PCS are popping up to offer additional choices that rely on the major provider's networks.

"Before deregulation in 1996, consumers had one option," said Tavis McCourt, a telecommunications analyst with investment firm Morgan Keegan. "Nine years later, thanks to wireless, cable companies and voice over IP providers, you can easily count at least 10 competitors in almost every major market. I really think that any concerns people have over the big mergers regarding competition in the consumer market is overblown."

Is that real competition, though? Consumer groups argue that the four Bells still control the majority of the residential telephone market. Three Bells are also top wireless players: SBC and BellSouth co-own top cell provider Cingular, and Verizon Communications owns a stake in No. 2 mobile operator Verizon Wireless. And broadband and VoIP options? Consumer groups say those aren't a realistic alternative, because broadband connections still are not available in every community.

Playing monopoly
The old-time Bells remain monopolies in the strictest sense: They alone own the copper lines that bring traditional telephone service into consumer homes. This is an enormous concern under traditional market consolidation benchmarks, since would-be phone rivals must presumably rent the Bells' lines or build their own competing wireline network at prohibitive costs.

But some experts say those benchmarks are hopelessly out of date, thanks to the rise of new phone technologies that dodge the copper networks. Consumer groups have argued against this thinking.

At stake are formulas for determining acceptable levels of competition not only in recent phone mergers, but the rapidly evolving broadband market. Reliance on new technology as a safeguard against monopoly abuse reached new heights at the Federal Communications Commission under recently departed chairman Michael Powell, who argued that releasing the Bells from some monopoly restrictions would spur increased competition with cable companies, among others.

"Even though MCI and AT&T have both stopped marketing their residential local phone services, today they are still the two main competitors to the Baby Bells in most markets," DeGraff said.

"But that's a very shortsighted perspective," counters Jeff Halpern, a senior telecommunications analyst for Sanford Bernstein. "The cable companies and VoIP providers have every probability of winning more market share than AT&T and MCI were ever able to win in the consumer voice market. And they will do it from a much better cost structure."

Cable hooks up VoIP
So far, the biggest competition for the Baby Bells has come from the cable TV companies. Cable providers' high-speed Internet offerings have cut into the Bells' data business. In 2001, the Bells started to see declines in the number of voice subscribers for the first time in their history. The number of active lines fell from 187 million in 2000 to 172 million in 2002--a decline of about 8 percent, according to a report from the Federal Communications Commission published last May.

Cox Communications was the first U.S. cable company to launch a telephone service over its cable connection. At the time--1997--few believed it could ever seriously compete in the local phone market.

The cable giants' phone strategy relies on VoIP. That low-cost technology lets a broadband connection double as a phone line by carrying calls partly or entirely over the Internet. While Cox and Comcast Communications currently offer traditional circuit-switched phone service in some markets, many are turning to VoIP phone services because they're cheaper.

It?s still early for VoIP, but the cable companies are aggressively deploying and marketing the new services. At the end of

Page 1 | 2


Join the conversation!
Add your comment
All of this VOIP competition via Cable is great until the Cable companies begin port blocking the Vonage's of the world to promote their own offerings.
Posted by PeteCollins (7 comments )
Reply Link Flag
No Can Do
Broadband providers run the risk of getting sued if they choose to block ports used by a competitor's VOIP service.
Posted by Big Tsunami (29 comments )
Link Flag
re: Port Blocking
If Big Broadband tries to block Small VoIP ports then Small VoIP will just have to get smart and use other ports that aren't blocked. Their client software should allow port remapping. There's plenty of stuff that can't be blocked FTP (21), SMTP (25), Pop3 (110), RSTP (554), etc., not to mention all the ports that Internet gaming uses. It's all just a game anyway.

Posted by Stating (869 comments )
Link Flag
How do you cut thru the complicated maze?
Is there a simple way to find out the most cost effective communication system on the market? It seems there is so much out there to choose from and everyone pushes a different twist that it makes it tremendously confusing as to how to purchase an appropriate communication set up. How can you have DSL for the computer without subscribing to a local land line provider? Going wireless is great, but how does a computer go wireless without a land line connection?
Posted by (1 comment )
Reply Link Flag
Technology is Irrelevant unless it solves the "last mile" problem
In our area, SBC STILL has a monopoly on all of the local phone lines. The cable which potentially could replace the phone line has a base price which is 1.5 times the cost of the traditional phone line, and the cheapest "unlimited" cell phone also is 1.5 times the cost of the traditional phone line.

So where is consumer choice? None over phone line...none over cable (Time-Warner is the monopoly)...and no cost-effective alternative from cellular companies.

Long distance is no longer a separate cost, but there is STILL NO COMPETITION in the "last mile"!!! ... And, thanks to our lilly-livered regulators and Congressional representatives, we are LOSING potential competitors every month.

So far, the technology has "cherry picked" the easy problem (long distance) and virtually ignored the hard problem ("last mile").
Posted by landlines (54 comments )
Reply Link Flag
In our area, Fairpoint owns the lines. There is no cable here. So Fairpoint sells 768kb internet at 49.95 a month (because the phone company that they purchased had already begun to offer this).

In Kinderhook, Fairpoint has bought out the local telco as well - but there there is a difference - cable. So they offer 5mb at 39.95 a month, because otherwise they would get no business at all. BTW, this is the only region which Fairpoint controls in which they offer such a "high" speed option.

How can it be legal for telecoms to do this to there customers? I thought that monopolies were required to provide comparable services and prices in spite of their status? Yet Fairpoint gets away with this. No wonder our country is so far behind.
Posted by phoenixjim (1 comment )
Reply Link Flag

Join the conversation

Add your comment

The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Click here to review our Terms of Use.

What's Hot



RSS Feeds

Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.