In with the old!

I received many responses to last week’s column, in which I discussed SBC Communications’ new TV ad campaign that communicates SBC’s heritage and experience as an established telecom service provider. Many of the responses were from people who work for SBC and were offended by what they perceived as my denigration of the ads, as well as what they perceived to be my bias against the incumbent carriers (especially SBC, said many). So I thought I’d use this opportunity to both share some of those responses and clarify the position I intended to communicate. (Editor’s note: The names are gone, and in some cases the spelling and grammar has been corrected to protect the innocent.)

One reader said I seem to have a “disdain for the ILECs” and that SBC was often the target of my derision. I will state here what I told that reader in response: I have no disdain for the ILECs in general or SBC in particular. My contention is that the incumbents should be concentrating on investing in and improving their networks, and that they should communicate that--in addition to communicating that they are an experienced, established carrier. That’s at least part of what last week’s column was trying to convey.

Another reader clearly has disdain for competitive carriers: “I have a problem with the ‘upstarts.’ They are a bunch of parasites that are taking advantage of a law that was designed to allow them to become a competitor even though they had no network… If I were a parasite and saw a dinosaur charging at me, I would get out of its path as quickly as possible.”

Several people who responded took issue with my reference to SBC as “old.” One wrote: “I was in the telephone industry when your mom was changing your diapers. What I have learned over the past 44 years is that there are many wannabees and just a few folks that really understand what it takes to make it in this business.” Again, no offense intended. Telephony magazine itself is old--more than 100 years old, in fact. In this environment, I agree that old can be very good if it translates into experience.

Finally, there was the reader who called me “utterly stupid.” Along with that and other invectives, that reader wrote: “Your innuendo that we are less than a high-tech company is sad and false.” Fair enough, had there been any innuendo to that effect. On the contrary, my column stated: “SBC should be careful to communicate to its customers, and to the financial community, that it is a high-tech company operating a state-of-the-art network, investing in its facilities and constantly looking for new ways to improve the applications and levels of service it provides to its customers.” That’s not innuendo--that clearly states that SBC “is a high tech company operating a state-of-the-art network” and should be communicating that.

That same reader also wrote: “You have just demonstrated that any idiot can write an opinion.” Again, I wholeheartedly agree.

Contact me at jmeyers@primediabusiness.com.