Slamming: Not for Incumbents Alone—continued

Covad unconscious?

All Morrison knows is that his DSL access has been disrupted since last week. He trusts his local ISP, he likes MediaNet's technical support and services and Morrison prefers to deal with a local company. Sure, Morrison could get his high-speed connection direct from Covad, or he could opt for using Ameritech DSL services, but he really wants to stick with MediaNet.

At the same time, Covad could have cut MediaNet's connections entirely, which would have made Morrison—along with all other MediaNet DSL users—have to re-provision DSL access from scratch. But Covad decided to fix the transition permanently to CAIS and not force MediaNet's DSL customers back into the growing line of wannabe subscribers.

In this instance, Morrison was not slammed into using an unauthorized DSL carrier. As a matter of fact, Covad said his service should be back up and running right now. But the affair does make one wonder—exactly what consumer rights or regulatory protections do DSL users like Morrison have?

Apparently, none.

Mary Jo Kunkle at the Michigan Public Service Commission said it has not received any complaints about MediaNet, StarNet, CAIS or Covad to date—so there is no local fix coming for DSL users in the "Wolverine State" anytime soon.

Try asking the FCC
A spokesperson at the FCC said slamming rules do not apply to DSL providers. Federal regulators will enforce line sharing rules and make sure network elements are unbundled, but what providers do with the lines after that—chief executives.

The FCC Enforcement Bureau is on the record stating, "Slamming robs consumers of their right to select the telephone companies they want to do business with."

Which is exactly what could happen to DSL users if current market trends continue and access providers keep closing doors and circuits alike—consumers will not have any choice about who provides their DSL connection outside of the "Baby Bells."

But there's a seedier side to companies that slam services on unwitting consumers. It's a cheap way to acquire new customers—if they don't get caught.

Clearly, Covad did not commit a criminal act by establishing stopgap measures to protect DSL users from failing ISP channel partners. Does this mean that slamming accusations should be tempered by intent?

Absolutely.

The FCC took regulatory action to stop anti-competitive business practices among communications carriers. Slamming distorts telecom market share by rewarding those companies that engage in deceptive practices to acquire new customers. Cheaters never prosper—slamming is fraud, fraud is unlawful, guilty party pays.

Covad did not perpetuate fraud on DSL users abandoned by failed service providers—it took heroic action to cast its Safety Net.

Big bucks
So what are Covad's true intentions: Altruism or greed?

Lukoskie said that the DSL provider still has about 90,000 lines to transition from failed service providers. Let's see—that's 90K lines multiplied by about $50 a month, adjusted on the year—totaling $54 million gross in new revenue for 2001.

Guess Covad's DSL user assurance program will end up netting the provider a bundle—now that's a safety net.

—End

Back to page 1: Slamming: Not for Incumbents Alone

     

Related articles:
	[Dec. 12, 2000]	Four Broadband ISPs Fold
	[Dec. 1, 2000]	StarNet Severs DSL Ties with Covad