SBC Plan Not Exactly in Line With Intent of Telecom Act

Should the Environmental Protection Agency place the Baby Bells on top of the endangered species list?

We started with seven, then five, now four, and, as SBC tries to rebuild the Ma Bell monopoly under its own name, there remains one bona fide truth: The Telecommunications Act demands that the Bell companies open their local markets to competitors, regardless of the size of the territory they cover [“When SBC Comes Calling,” May 12].

As merger mania sweeps across the nation, the onus has been placed more heavily on state officials to protect the public good and ensure the Bells are complying with the Telecommunications Act. The fact is, the larger the SBC monopoly, the more influence it exerts over the noncompetitive residential market.

This is not the multiple-choice, competitive supplier environment the act envisioned. Regulators--our last and most important consumer advocate--must pay close attention to SBC’s actions and ensure strict adherence to the Telecommunications Act.

The Baby Bells may disappear like the dinosaurs of yesteryear; however, consumers may be the real losers if a national local telecommunications monopoly emerges in the survival of the fittest.

MARK PHIGLER

President

Americans for Competitive

Telecommunications

Walnut Creek