Be patient; this sounds like a pit rant at first but I’m really looking for your humble opinions.
I have been seeing the anti-AT&T monopoly commercials on TV more and more lately, saying the usual things about how having three or four big telephone companies is so much worse for the consumer than having lots of little mom & pop independent telcos. Every time I see them, I have to chuckle and shake my head sadly. The reason I do this is because I spend the majority of my work day waiting on hold for a number of independent telcos to address some relatively minor problem in their network, or repair some minor (to me) facility trouble. Meanwhile there is a police station or medical clinic or branch of public schools that has been without fast packet data service for several days.
I personally find that the smaller independent telcos:
• Are much less customer service oriented. If I didn’t constantly bug them all day long, I believe they would never call us back within an acceptable time frame.
• Hire less capable technicians. I hold this view because I often have to guide their field techs through simple procedures like performing basic line testing.
• Use sub-standard test equipment that is incapable of performing the highly sophisticated testing that high speed data lines require.
Some of them aren’t even in service 24 hours a day! If there is a service outage in one of their regions at 2:00 in the morning, forget it. You’ll just have to wait until 9 o’clock when mom & pop come into the office.
I would estimate that I spend -no exaggeration- two thirds of my work day sitting on hold with sister sections of my company that are now considered “affiliates” because if we were still one big happy family, that would be a monopoly. Nevermind that I could get consumers back in service in hours instead of days, we need to introduce a bunch of new neighborhood telcos to increase competition, thereby ultimately reducing the cost of goods to the consumer by 50¢ or a dollar per month! Yep, that’s what consumers want!
My humble opinion is that, yes, monopolies can be bad for the consumer, but in certain instances where public utilities are involved (and consequently public safety is at stake), having one or two big companies run the show makes things work more smoothly (even if it does cost a little bit more).
So here’s the poll:
- Do you agree or disagree with my humble opinion in the previous paragraph?
- Do you know what the intent of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 is? Do you even care?
The stated goal of the Act is
-
Do you think that a public utility is a line of business that “anyone” should be able to enter?
-
Choose between:
(a) Having a slightly smaller monthly phone (or cable) bill in exchange for service that is unreliable and takes days or weeks to repair*.
(b) Having a slightly higher bill in exchange for better customer service, and repairs that take an hour or two instead of a day or two.
I’m kind of hoping that this thread dies quickly, that’ll confirm my belief that nobody really cares about the monopoly “problem”, at least where the phone company is concerned.