SBC Seems to Be Hedging

In what is clearly meant to be both a hedge against losing money to VoIP competitors by slowing them down by charging them more, SBC has also at the same time made a move that could potentially make their VoIP service less costly.

In a tarriff filing today, SBC wants to charge ISP's more if they terminate calls on their network according to a report from The Wall Street Journal.(Subscription Required)

Sadly, this is so typical from a company that seeks total control and ownership of the pipe and the customer and which sees their competition not being the other telcos and next generation VoIP providers, but also the cable MSOs.

Yesterday I called all this an arms race. Now it's turning into economic warfare as well. Smartly, FCC Chairman Michael Powell has already announced he's looking into this. Don't also be surprised if this is also bargaining chip by SBC to establish some preferred provider relationships with ISP's and MSO's to get more of the data traffic as well as voice calls moving over their networks. While Level 3, MCI, Qwest, Broadwing and AT&T have significant if not the most traffic, SBC has also built out their own IP network, and that's a network that needs filling up. It would not be out of the realm of possbility that companies working with SBC get some sort of incentives and all this is a rouse to get them there.....

In the meantime it's important that all of the VOIP companies and the ISP's band together to work to stop what is meant to be clearly another square on SBC's Monopoly Board game.

Comments

[Anon]

I live off of SBC's backbone in snet.net territory. The backbone is actually quite nice and has a lot of peering arrangements already; routing is quite efficient to most sites, even worldwide -- while there's no native SBC routes out of the country, the peering arrangements are for the most part well thought out. (See http://sbcbackbone.net) Traffic tends to go through Sprintlink when there's no better peer (but more often goes to a peer). My only complaints are that too many packets go from CT down to VA for peering, then back up to NYC instead of going straight to NYC (there's some SBC peering there, but not enough), and the suboptimal routes to att.net territory (annoying for playing battle.net games of Warcraft 3, Diablo II, WoW, etc.).

But hey, I'm all for better and more peering arrangements.

[Passing Through]

Here's an interesting article that's been overlooked.

http://wirelessreview.com/ar/wireless_voip_cuts_cord/

It suggests SBC is looking WAY beyond the home VOIP application that most folks think of when they subscribe to Vonage.

I don't believe VOIP is total "after thought" for SBC as some folks have lamented. Granted they'd probably rather stay with the money making ways of old. It was easier back then. But I don't think they're sittin sippin slurpees in VOIP planning meetings anymore.

You have to read well into the article to get to the discussion about SBC. But it is clear SBC is thinking some combination of wireless and VOIP from home to road to office.

I'm still pondering why SBC would risk raising your awareness of Wi-Fi VOIP possibilities away from the home at the expense of more lucrative cell calls.

Maybe it's the bundle game. If I can get you to believe that you can get ALL your services from me and the total package will be reasonable...even if I loose on some and gain on others...then you'll stay with me and I'll win the customer entrenchment factor that'll be worth megabucks to me over the long term as I reel in marketshare.

Back to the monopoly game as has been suggested by others.

[skibare]

ever get the feeling we are at a ''rigged poker'' match where everyone tries to cheat and NOBODY wants to bet!!!!!!!

Skibare