Slashdot Mirror
Baby Bell Deregulation Bill Fails To Pass In Kansas
Masem writes "A rather interesting debate has been happening in Kansas recently that has been mirrored across the country, in that the baby Bells have been trying to urge state governments to remove the restrictions for them to offer their lines to outside parties; in exchange, the Bells have been promising to develop a strong broadband network in the state. (See, for example, this and this story on DSL Reports for efforts in Missouri and South Carolina.) However, the legislative commission in the Kansas House of Representatives that oversees the telecomm industry has voted against such deregulation, citing concerns on monopolies and competition, despite heavy lobbying by SBC in favor of the bill. SBC has stated that they will now put their broadband deployment plans in Kansas on hold, but look towards the outcome of similar discussions on the same bill on the Senate side of the Kansas Congress."
Can these companies be held liable under the RICOH act? In essensce, what they are doing is extorting the people of these states? They are demanding huge sums of money in order to provide broadband service.
What scumbags.
Of course, under this administration, they feel empowered to do this. Under Bush and Powell Jr., the people do not own the airwaves or the fiberoptics. Under Bush, the people are owned.
-- You see, there would be these conclusions that you could jump to
I fully support the idea of belling babies, in principle. I've had these little bastards sneak up on me before with their deceptively cute little eyes and sharp little growing incisors, and I can say from uncomfortable experience that it's just not pretty When Babies Attack.
The question is, who's got the guts to do it?
The baby bells do not own the lines, so I don't see why they should go crying to the state like little boys.
The same argument applies to software vendors who want to force Microsoft to include their application software on the Windows installation CD.
For some reason I can't get the article link to come up. What broadband deployments? I assume since this is Bell they're talking about DSL. Perhaps they're referring to installing "repeaters" on phone lines to get the DSL transmission over greater distances? As it stands, anyone who lives within the requisite distance and doesn't have fiber along the route to/from the CO can get DSL...I'm just not sure what they could be deploying.
Palaces, barricades, threats, meet promises
Sounds like a serious case of "Waaaah, I'm taking my Bell and going home!". Goddamn sore losers. Actions like that are exactly why they're not being deregulated. They'll never learn.
My own pointless vanity vintage computing page
Please. If they thought they could make money from the network, they would have already developed it. If they think they can not make money, or they envision a free ride somehow, they won't develop one.
Their is only 1 consideration for corporations. How much money. Promises are meaningless.
Let them develop the (quality lowcost) network on the promise that they will be deregulated after they do. See if that happens...
From the article (the first one linked):
The political maneuvering is somewhat of a pre-emptive strike.
I agree that a pre-emptive strike is probably necessary in this instance. Until the Baby Bells can prove without a reasonable doubt that they've destroyed all of their WOMD (women of mass dialing - the telemarkers), we should bomb (phreak) them repeatedly.
--sex
Very popular slashdot journal for adul
"SBC-Kansas president Randy Tomlin had said that without the legislation, SBC wouldn't invest in expansive broadband deployment in the state. The company only offers the service in 24 Kansas communities.
"The big losers today are the people of Kansas," said a visibly angry Tomlin as he read a prepared statement following the meeting. "They lost the opportunity to keep pace with other states when it comes to telecommunications access."
OK, let's see what we have here:
The Kansas legislature voted against allowing SBC to cut off competitors who wanted to compete against them in DSL service. Free market types kept saying that it's their lines and why should they have to share them? The answer is because without government regulation, the consumer would be faced with a monopoly situation that would be anti-competitive and anti-consumer. Let's see if SBC agrees:
SBC wouldn't invest in expansive broadband deployment in the state. -- Translation: We lost and we are taking our toys and going home. Oh wait, we are home. Well we won't do any more investment because we care about the consume-- er, because we care about our profits above all.
"The big losers today are the people of Kansas" -- Translation: The big winners today are the people of Kansas.
"They lost the opportunity to keep pace with other states" -- Translation: Other states that are also under attack from the incumbent Bells.
-----
Obviously your reliance on the 'hip lingo' of the kids these days has destroyed your ability to think quickly enough to secure first post!
Get a haircut, clean up your act, and get a job, you FAILURE!
One god, one market, one truth, one consumer.
So, it's basically nothing more than blackmailing the government, with potential paying customers held in limbo. Doesn't seem like a very smart move.
Of course, harming customer confidence seems to have no meaning in the telecom/broadband world, where a few companies essentially already own all the business. Because, where else are you going to go? Just call any broadband provider's customer/technical support to learn that.
assuming that BabyBel is Dutch then someone comes along and tells you it's French. My whole world is in tatters.
A cousin of mine warned me about this almost a year ago. He works for a wireless provider up in Canada and said that sooner or later one of the Baby Bells would attempt to buy a national (Canadian) wireless provider to get around all the headaches that they are facing... That way they would be able to circumvent all of the regulations that the Bells are constantly facing. This would allow them to go from coast to coast on their own networks by routing through Canada...
I know this is a little off topic but seeing as microcell already has their foot in the door as well as Cantel/AT&T... this may be a bigger upset on the horizon for those interested in the telecom wars...
YOU LIKEWISE FAIL... yadda yadda yadda
One god, one market, one truth, one consumer.
You people bitch and moan about wanting cheap broadband, but when SBC comes in and says "we want to build a network without threats that you'll force us to subsidize the competition", everyone screams "MONOPOLY!!!"
The only way you'll ever get cheap broadband is if there is more than one way to get it. Cable is the ONLY way to get it in many areas. DSL would be the second way if legislators would just let the market take its course.
Soon, this will all be a moot point since wireless broadband will end the debate within 5 years.
I'm beginning to think that this has nothing to do with cheese... ;)
Powered by onion juice.
They're saying that the Kansas House doesn't want to deregulate the Baby Bells because they fear a monopoly. Isn't that what the Baby Bells are already doing by "threatening" with delays on Broadband deployments? They are leveraging their (current) position to try to influence someone/something. Aren't they? IANAL, so I'm probably way off...
It has been proposed by many of the Baby Bells' competitors that the government could solve this problem (and all of the fighting) if it would split the ILECs: one company "owns" the last mile and sells access while the other new company offers serives over those wires. Naturally, the Baby Bells have been fighting this proposal tooth-and-nail.
I honestly don't know if that proposal is the best solution, but if it comes down to splitting the Bells versus local governments seizing control of the last mile...as a customer, I'd prefer the former over the latter.
--K.
Sig: Bad people happen. Try to avoid being one of them.
see my sig file
Slashdot 's editors are dickheads
Deregulation of any sort means very little if, like my state, it is illegal to run your own cable/phone/broadband lines. The competition is a layer of psuedo corps covering the monopolistic entity that "rents" the lines. Try forming your own phone company and see what your local power brokers do.
"mildly spicy"
In the same way as Camay?
According to my Father, a 35 + yr veteran of Southwestern Bell, er, SBC, the restrictions in question are that they have to sell their lines to any third party at half their cost.
Meaning they take losses every time someone else leases lines from them to turn around at sell at prices below the profit levels of SBC.
That was the problem/question of the day at the Kansas Legislature.
Of course, I'd like to see broadband come to Kansas beyond the three larger areas (Kansas City, Wichita, and Topeka) but hey, I guess us midwestern folks don't need it as badly.
As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.
I'm not completely familiar with all the details on this, but having dealt with SBC for a number of years now with the company I work for and having been a locked-in customer of theirs for all my life, all I can say is Hoo-Yah!
Their arrogance is typical of all regulated (and unregulated) monopolies. The president of SBC Kansas Randy Tomlin, according to the Topeka Capital Journal, reacted angrily, "The big losers today are the people of Kansas. They lost the opportunity to keep pace with other states when it comes to telecommunications access."
Reality check, Mr. Tomlin. Your company will never voluntarily provide any kind of broadband Internet access in any locality of less than 2500 people, unless, of course, your definition of broadband is 26.4 kbps through a Pair Gain system. With is currently the case for the majority of your customer base. You most likely don't have a clue as to why wireless broadband is taking off either.
These tossers got exactly what they deserve, particularly after eliminating several hundred jobs in Topeka right around the first of 2003. This should give some idea to their cluelessness. Eliminate jobs, then ask the legislature for an end to regulatory oversight of their "broadband" division.
SBC has become among the most predatory of the "Baby Bells" and it's time somebody told them, "No!" Even AT&T praised this bill's dismissal in committee.
It isn't often I praise the actions of our legislature in Kansas, but this is one of those times when they deserve a good word for their actions.
"Insanity is doing the same thing over again expecting a different result."
Wow .. maybe the prestige of living in Kansas will be just higher than dirt (on slashdot) ever since that nasty "take the science out of the science classes" episode a few years ago.
On a more related note, the only other facilities based carrier pulled out of the residential market last year. Birch Telecom will be missed.
There are other companies, but most are simply reselling other SBC services. Sprint and MCI Neighborhood are the ones who come to mind.
It would be interesting to see if our Attorney General had anything to do with this. As I remember she was involved in keeping Kansas involved in the Microsoft antitrust suite going, despite being a Republican and generally in the "pro business" camp.
Yeah, apparently they had to be clad in red jackets to prevent dry rot ;)
Powered by onion juice.
here is a Mirror.
I put on my robe and wizard hat.
Here I sit, in rural Kansas (the lot my house is on was a wheat field less than three years ago), typing this comment and downloading the SGI Freeware package for Irix over my DSL.
A DSL connection that has NOTHING AT ALL to do with a Baby Bell.
Believe it or not, SBC, but you are NOT the only game in town. The independant telcos are doing MUCH BETTER at deploying DSL than you are!
I thought it funny - last Friday, I came home to find a flyer on my door for DirectTV's sat based Internet service. I guess the poor schlub who came down from Wichita thought that we rubes in the country couldn't possibly have fast Internet service...
Thanks, I'll take my nice 50ms ping over a bird any day of the week.
www.eFax.com are spammers
I am a Kansan, and SBC can suck it.
Broadband should be rolled out by local cooperatives, not big corporations. You can't trust a baby bell to deliver service. Maybe then we'll get metered broadbad, rather than gouging us all for a few industrial users.
What if it is just turtles all the way down?
Because with standing regulations they then have to turn around and resell the lines to their competitors for less than it costs them (SBC) to install and maintain them. Said competitors then turn around and sell those lines to SBC's largest customers cheaper than SBC can. Why would they want to give them the chance? This isn't the monopoly of yesteryear where they were the only telco in town. The others just don't want to put the investment into their own lines...it's cheaper to leech. I can't blame them. It's good economics. But you can't blame SBC for not offering any other veins for them to suck dry.
"The big losers today are the people of Kansas"
Unless Kansas can either get their government to pay for the broadband lines or convince some other telco besides SBC to actually invest any money in equipment, they don't get broadband.
"They lost the opportunity to keep pace with other states"
Other states that favor level fields where everyone who uses the new lines has to pay for the new lines, not just the ones who put them in the ground.
-----
Yeah, the big corporations are all out to get you personally, but if it weren't for the big corporations big investment bucks, you wouldn't get any of your favorite toys...because the little shops don't have the money...and the medium shops are run by people as greedy as the big corporations and don't have the spare cash after over-paying their upper-management.
They're either pouting or bluffing. SBC's competitors will start getting more broadband customers, and SBC can't ignore that for very long despite what they claim. SBC will be salivating and eventually they'll have to take a bite no matter what they say about keeping their hands off.
My parents live in Kansas. Way out west where the only way to actually get technology was to form (gasp) cooperatives. That's right, apparently the anti-communist propoganda 50 years ago failed to disuade the locals from setting up cooperatives to share the technology for all. Granted at first they only shared phone lines (the so called party lines). What does this cooperative get them these days? Well it got them DSL 2 years before my appartment in Manhattan had it. Rates are as good as I've seen anywhere and since its a cooperative, everyone gets a check once a year or so with a refund. Check out the local telco united www.ucom.net. See any lack of service there? Any exorbitant prices? Nope, didn't think so. Granted, some people might want to go with SBC -- maybe they see a pretty ad on TV or something and really want to switch, but when it comes down to it -- and your next door neighbor works for the local phone company, the people of Kansas know what side their bread is buttered on.
Let me first say I am biased. My mother works at the coporate headquarters in for SBC in San Antonio, TX.
Now, from what she tells me, SBC is forced by current regulations to sell access to their lines to competing phone companies for less than it costs SBC to up keep those lines. I saw another poster say that SBC does not own those lines. Yes, they do and they are the only ones who do up keep on them. No other non-Bell company has the infrastructure or know how for doing line upkeep. So if SBC goes under you will suddenly find that there is no service without SBC. These so called other phone companies are just carriers with no real phone line assets. Since by federal regulation (what is often called deregulation) they don't pay SBC the cost of up keeping lines that they use, it comes out of the SBC shareholders pockets...even when SBC does not carry the majority of the customers in any given area.
Keep that in mind next time an SBC guy comes out to fix your line even though you use a different carrier. You are essentially getting a free service (or ripped off if you carrier is charging you a service fee for it).
They're obviously not paying enough in bribes. If you pay the right amounts to the right people, you not only get to become a monopoly - you get to stay a monopoly. Right Mr Gates?
Here in Indiana, it looks like SBC is going to get there way. I just love the commercials that go back and forth, battling for the rights of "the consumer." In reality, this is one mega corporation against a few mega corporations - the consumer is simply the entree at the feast...
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
I say good for Kansas.
If congress can pass the 256 channels of wireless, it will allow large amounts of competition throughout the country. At that time, SBC will be behind the 8 ball or will simply use the same technology as everybody else.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Why should SBC invest money in a network that others will be able to sponge off of at whatever arbitrary rate the govt. thinks is fair. Of course they're not going to invest money. Given all the telcom failures recently, the risk has proven to be enormous. No one in their right mind would take such a risk under regulatory conditions. The same thing happened with CA power. There was no incentive to invest in new power plants since profit margins are minimal due to state regulation, even though the increase in demand over time was easily predictable. Only after rolling blackouts threatened govt re-elections did Davis do anything about the problem.
Vote for Pedro
Within a couple days Ameritech came back and said the line was ready, so Northpoint was scheduled. When the Northpoint tech got there he said the pair was not ready, and called Ameritech who stated it would be at least 2 weeks. When Northpoint called to follow up with Ameritech, they said it was ready and to send out their tech. Trip two for the Northpoint guy resulted in even worse line conditions, trip three was planned and supposedly coordinated with Ameritech. This went on 3 more times just at this one house, and finally the line was ready and the DSL was operational. It took about 120 days from order to live, and everyone was pissed.
Now repeat this scenario for 5 other execs at my place and 2 friends of mine who lived in the same general area. I was an Earthlink dial up customer at the time, signed up with them for DSL, they were told by Ameritech we were ready to roll, they sent me a self-install kit, and when I tried to hook it up and it failed, they told Earthlink my address wasn't ready. And for 2 years I lived without DSL, unitl Earthlink gave up on this market, Northpoint was gone, and Ameritech had the local market to themselves. Two weeks later my line was approved, and on the fourth wee I had DSL at home.
This is clearly and abusive monopoly, and the fact that they are openly blackmailing state and local governments should be dealt with in a swift and harsh manner. As a country we have been promised repeatedly that deregulation of all public utilities and services will promote competition, preven monopolies of this sort and generally lower prices. Yet my DSL was held hostage until Ameritech could profit directly from it, my cable T.V. cost more than ever, heating cost go up each winter, and cell phone rates aren't much better. Hmmm, globalization, corporatization and deregulation of everything isn't helping consumers, big shock.
"A DSL connection that has NOTHING AT ALL to do with a Baby Bell."
No such thing in the United States. Your service provider may not be a Baby Bell, but a Baby Bell owns the physical wire.
"Believe it or not, SBC, but you are NOT the only game in town."
When it comes down to the physical wires, yes, they are. By law.
"The independant telcos are doing MUCH BETTER [slashdot.org] at deploying DSL than you are!"
Only when the Baby Bells let them by upgrading the hardware.
Here in Arkansas South Western Bell has already halted its DSL expansion until it can get a bill passed which will allow exclusive line rights. If you believe what they have to say about it looks like this:
1) SwBell spends untold dollars expanding DSL coverage
2) The bastards at the ILECs come in and rent the lines at a quarter of the cost and undercut swbell's profits
But the real situation is more like this:
1) Tax payers subsidized the installations of phone lines and gave swbell exclusivity for a long time in exchange for the initial investment, which, mind you, was subsidized.
2) Swbell wants this next phase ( dsl expansion ) to also be subsidized and have indefinite exclusivity.
Other little facts:
South Western Bells president made $84 million last year.
They proposed a plan to put neighborhood gateways into every dark spot in the central arkansas by 2002 ( project pronto ), upon deregulation, the plan was frozen.
They are laying off workers fast enough to make fuckedcompany give them big ratings
SouthWestern Bell is screwing everyone.
I'm sorry sir, but you have no clue what you are talking about.
There are plenty of independant phone companies out there, and they DO own the wire.
There is no "law" in the US to the contrary.
I would suggest you go recheck your sources.
You see, MY sources are actual OWNERS of the telephone company. So I think they know just a bit more about the subject than you do.
www.eFax.com are spammers
Bury the buggers in Japanese copiers, that'll show 'em.
KFG
If it can't form a free market by itself, it doesn't belong in the market. We've been around the block one too many times on this issue to allow ourselves to keep getting bitten by it. If SBC wants to blackmail Kansas, fuck 'em. yank their charter for the state.
I have SBC phone service here. They've developed tiered billing for LOCAL CALLS. So when I get my bill I see all of my local calls split up into this various "savings periods" that have doubled my monthly rates. When I signed up for the service they told me "it will always be 14.99 a month!" I paying fucking 30 dollars a month without any extras at all, no long distance either. Fuck SBC!
Baby, I have a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore
I see a couple of people above moaning that SBC is forced to sell the "last-mile" loops to competitors for under cost, meaning the price they charge to the CLEC is less than it costs to maintain the wire.
This is patently false.
What the truth of the matter is this: the ILEC has to price the loop costs equally for all comers, INCLUDING THEIR OWN INTERNAL CUSTOMERS. Thus, out here in PacBell land, the costs that PacBell charges a CLEC (say AT&T or Covad) to lease a loop is the same costs is must charge PacBell Internet to lease that loop.
Guess, what? The ILEC like to subsidize their ISP and premium service groups by "selling" them loops for less than they cost. Regluation simply forces the ILEC to play fair, by allowing other CLECs to get this same price, and thus not allowing the monopoly on physical loop ownership to spill over into other services.
The ILEC could charge CLECs the proper amount to cover their costs, but they'd have to charge their in-house divisions the same rate. Thus, in reality, it is not the CLECs who are getting the free ride on the backs of the ILEC, but that the ILEC is propping up one of its own companies at the expense of another part of the ILEC conglomerate.
The Kansas legislature was completely correct - don't ever believe an ILEC "promise" in exchange for relaxation of regulation. They lie through their teeth constantly.
Fundamentally, the real solution is to force the ILECs to divest from physical loop ownership, and spin off a seperate company which is only allowed to own the loops, but may not sell data/voice services over those loops. Keep the hardware (a natural monopoly) distinct from the data (a natural competive market). Right now, we mix the two, to the detriment of all.
-Erik
There are always four sides to every story: your side, their side, the truth, and what really happened.
This person says you are full of shit.
SBC wouldn't invest in expansive broadband deployment in the state."
Because with standing regulations they then have to turn around and resell the lines to their competitors for less than it costs them (SBC) to install and maintain them.
You believe that? It looks like the above mentioned co-operative could afford the costs. The local Bell must have some costs that the others don't, like angry, overpaid executives.
The quick translation to this is, "We will do everything in our power to thwart you unless you do things exactly as we want." You know what the difference between that and extortion is? Neither do I.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
What the market will bear? A monopoly is not a free market. You can crow all you want about how wonderful free markets are, and you'll be right, when you can find them.
I live in a town in KS that SBC will not provide DSL service in. A town about 10 miles from here is one of a handful of locations that SBC does provide DSL service in.
There are many alternatives however. Cox Communications has a strong broadband offering in many parts of the state, at least in many towns that SBC serves. There is also wireless broadband popping up in many locations.
They don't realize it, but they are just hurting themselves by not selling broadband here, as by the time they do, it will be too late.
Trying is the First Step to Failing --Homer Simpson
It's not an inherent monopoly. It's a govt granted monopoly. If the govt. allowed competitors to run their own independent networks, there would be real competition, and no need for govt. regulation.
Vote for Pedro
Within the last 2 years 3 of Kansas City's suburbs which are in Kansas have had a Choice to the Dominant telecom provider in our area, SBC. The Name of This Company Is Everest, It provides 3 different services; Internet, Phone and Cable. The Tier I have costs $102 a month tax included. The package includes rental of cable modem capped at 256k with unlimited download,unlimited # of computers connected to cable modem. Basic Phone with Caller ID,Call waiting and Three way calling, Long Distance at 10 cents a minute. The Cable Tier is as follows Basic, Digital with One decoder and 1 premium channel package (I got HBO)no limit on # of Hookups with use of Signal Amps. This Company had plans to wire the entire metro until Enron killed the Power Tradeing Sector. The Parent Co, Aquila has had to scale back its investment and Everest just annouced Layoffs. This Service is Great and I hope It Grows. If You live In Overland Park ,Shawnee or Lenexa I urge you to sign up.
There are many areas in Kansas that SBC couldn't care less about. Those areas are served by smaller companies, that many will tell you provide much better service, and customer service than Bell companies typically do.
A few of these are:
Southern KS Telephone Company
Twin Valley Telephone Company
Sprint (Believe it or not, they service Oxford, KS with 455 people in town)
among many others.
Not everything is owned by a Baby Bell. One might want to stop and consider that its probably a good thing too.
Trying is the First Step to Failing --Homer Simpson
SBC has been trying to have their cake and eat it too in every market they serve. They are trying to get all the benifits of the telecom act of 1996 including the ability to try and reform the bell corp without any of the hassles, like competition, regulation, etc. In Ohio they have ads running trying to persuade the sheeple that the state legislature is being mean and unfair because they expect SBC to open their lines to competition before they can offer both local and long distance. The problem is, that is the conditions laid out in the act and the trade that was agreed upon, now they want the deregulation and don't want to offer competition. (oh yeah and thanks to a friendly reading by Powel Jr. and co. they can keep anyone on a competitors dialtone from getting dsl, what kind of crap is that!!)
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
I represent SBC through a third company to market their DSL service in the area. Other states like Texas Missouri and others aren't bad to call into since we can usually get the customer to tell us something like too expensive or that they already have cable modem. Then we can disposition their number in the database and we stop calling. Kansas on the other hand has a no rebuttal law, so when they say no, we don't get to disposition their number and we end up calling them back. Most people in Kansas are far more hostile to telemarketers now. Hopefully if SBC is putting their DSL plans on hold in Kansas I can stop calling there. Oh well.
Go to every state in which SBC does business..all of those states are seeing exploisons of Fixed wireless deployments to take away SBC's business..
SBC wants control to lock competitors out which does not work wen competing against fixed wireless providers..
SBC we do not need your monopolistic ways!
Don't Tread on OpenSource
They all have lousy customer service.
The ILECs don't want to offer affordable DSL that will take business away from their expen$ive T1 and better circuits. If you were them, would you? Of course not.
Meanwhile, there is an excess of long-haul fiber gone dark and residential customers and small businesses suffer lack of bandwidth.
The ILECS, such as SBC, are probably the greatest single obstacle to broadband deployment in the the country. The Kansas House did the right thing.
Personally, I believe the ILECs should be prohibited from offering DSL entirely.
Why Covad, despite having the technical knowledge, equipment, and personnel to do so, was not allowed to fix the shoddy SBC telephone line that connects my apartment to the CO? There are an unholy number of bridge taps, load coils, and a couple of LONG unterminated pairs connected to my line which make it impossible for me to get DSL from anyone, including SBC. And it's SBC's fault it's screwed up in the first place. All fixable, but in the three years I've lived here, SBC has not lifted a finger to fix things up.
The Covad tech apologized for not being able to set up DSL for me due to the poor condition of the line, but lamented that under the current rules, SBC *WILL NOT ALLOW* Covad to fix the lines themselves. If SBC wants a monopoly on my g*ddamn phonelines, they had better be able to do this "upkeep" your mom claims they are doing. They've not been doing it on my lines, and they've been shirking their maintenance duties for years in Indiana. They have been sanctioned repeatedly for it by our state government. This is as close as you can get to a government stating "You, SBC, are guilty of sucking."
Your Mother is either not in a position to know what's actually going on, or is part of the marketing machine that tries to make their competition out to be bad guys. They are not. They are fighting like hell just for the chance to be ALLOWED to clean up the unholy clusterfuck of a mess incumbents like SBC have made of the phone system. Which was given to them in the form of right-of-way and tax-funded subsidies in the first place. It is not theirs to lock up, no matter how much they repeat that to themselves, your mother, and their potential customers.
"But they should have to build their own lines, too!" you whine. That, my friend, is impossible. The right-of-way has been granted, and it is being held rather tightly by the incumbents. Call up your local government and just TRY to get approval to run some cable on a couple of telephone poles, or to dig a miles-long trench for some fiber. I'm sure they'll sign you right up as Mr. New Phone Company. Nobody new can run their own lines. Thank god for wireless, and here's to hoping it crushes SBC in the coming years.
I'm sorry for the harshness, but after SBC has fought and fought to avoid upgrading the lines to my area, and actively prevented the Covad techs from cleaning up FOR them, I have no respect for them.
I sincerely hope the government takes the lines back and kicks the lazy bastards out, since SBC and their ilk are clearly not capable of keeping things running.
The response to this was something more akin to "The People's Company" (Which admittingly should now be updated to be labled the "FOR THE CHILDREN" company). They showed blue collar workers in full utility belts and hardhats, working in ditches in inclimate to fair weather, concerned switchboard technicians and tech service personnel. However they obviously did not show the army of do-nothing middlemen that I have heard from many that SBC employs. Good leadership is what separates a gaggle of clusterfucks from a well oiled machine of efficiency and good results. However the modern practice (and it is growing) is to simply place any ol Tom, Dick or Harry in management simply because they are a buddy, know the right buzzwords (regardless of actually understanding the technology) or because the internal business personnel logistical infrastructure has an obvious cap on non management advancement so that you really have no choice to switch to management if you want to either climb the ladder or just want to grow and improve the company.
Things that would never be allowed (simply because of Business Natural Selection) in smaller companies or on personal levels (think contracting someone to build your deck or computer) are encouraged and made to flourish if looking at actions and the pattern of decisions. I have heard that SBC is full of this which is never good for good products or service and certainly is not good for morale (which in turn just degrades the products and services more).
The mentality that only management has the best interests of the company in mind and all non-management is only out to slack off and steal from the company is the problem from what I have seen. Sadly this seems to usually be very much the opposite as it is obvious (again by observing the pattern of decisions and actions/inactions) that such an organization is filled with those who are more interested in sitting on their charge number rather than actually doing their job. If a problem arises their response is not to fix it, not to take steps to correct the causative agent or to establish an process of learning from the mistake (not doing it again and again and again). No, the response is send a bullshit artist "damage control" agent in to charm, confuse and trick the customer rep into either accepting the fault or wheeling and dealing things that are not a) possible or b) ethical. The stereotypical example of this is when by a lack of communication and application of even the most rudimentary professional process (coupled with internal team mismanagment and chaotic or no direction at all) results in an overdue yet underfunction (or wrong functionality) product. The customer asks, "what the hell have you been doing?" followed by, "I never wanted that!" and the project management refuses to admit (which is the first stage of learning and adapting) the errors and try to bewitch the customer rep. Next thing you hear is that the 12 week schedule you had initially (of which you are obviously behind since you were not implementing what the customer wanted, much less are all ready took over 12 weeks just to get 15% done) is now a 4 week "schedule" (<-- implies structure, planning and consistency). If anything goes wrong who will be the first to go? Not the management, no it will be the ones that were foolishly depending on management to DO THEIR JOB. I have seen this more times and it is pathetic when the result is anything but a lesson learned. Perhaps the real solution is to implement "The Lottery" with management. Make sure that they REALLY are their to facilitate good work not to just absorb money and destroy morale and productivity.
My only choice of service is Craw-Kan, which is also my phone company. I have done everything to try to get better service, short of paying the $5,000 quoted to me to run service lines and the $1,000 a month to keep them in use.
This company is the biggest monopoly and gets away with it. You can't be late with your payment or be $1 short on your bill. One time they charged me wrong for internet service and it took me two weeks to get it fixed. Plus I still had to overpay or my phone and internet would have been gone. Once they finally admitted their error they just gave me credit.
My only other option is a $600 investment in satellite.
If there is any possibility of something reducing the power of this evil entity, I'm all for it.
What's worse is they don't even know what they are running, I asked them once what they use and got told "Sun Windows or something, I dunno."
Zero tech support as well, I've never gotten a reply to an email. A phone call gets you an answering machine, any time of the day.
Bring on any evils of SBC, hell I'd gargle on Gate's balls just so I could have something beside Craw-Kan.
Sorry for the rant.
SBC should run their own network. The cable companies should run their own networks. The government should make it easy (minimal/quick paperwork, not necessarily cost) for additional competitors to get right-of-way to build their own networks. Having the telcos and cable companies compete is good in and of itself, but throwing a new fiber-to-the-home data-only network into the mix would really do wonders. Or a WiFi provider with their APs linked by hardline. Whatever the crews putting up the money want to try.
George Gilder (lunatic that he is) said it best: "DSL is the equivalent of the Pony Express genetically engineering winged horses." Let's build some railroads already!
I have a friend in Belle Plain, and he have very little good to say about Sprint.
They won't deploy DSL, only their wireless service. Unfortunately, where he is he would need a 75 foot tower to have LOS to the transmitter.
Personally, I don't see a problem, but I'm a ham - the bigger the stick the better.
And as I said in my journal, Southern Kansas really does understand customer service - and their eyes don't glaze over when you use the "L" word.
And a friend of mine gets quite good service from Haviland Telephone Co, but that's hardly surprising - when he filled out his forms to get internet service from them, under Employer/Job Title he truthfully put down "Your Boss (ret.)"
www.eFax.com are spammers
LinuxOnHal - which town are you in?
I'm in Viola, KS.
www.eFax.com are spammers
The Bells said, "We can't make money in this market. If you give us a monopoly, though, then we could make some money, and we'd get into the market, and lots of people would have DSL. Pretty please?"
The Legislature said, "No."
So the Bells whined and went home.
--dan
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
A couple things come to mind, regarding this situation.
First of all, Kansas is a fairly spread-out, sparsely populated state. Not the environment that encourages broadband deployments right now.....
It sounds to me like the people of Kansas made the right decision by rejecting Bell's power-play. The fact is, Bell hasn't and isn't going to offer them much more than they're getting right now. Their best hope for the future is to minimize Bell's power over telecommunications, so a new, 3rd. party, will hopefully rise up and provide high speed internet connections.
Secondly, right on the eastern border of Kansas lies Kansas City, Missouri - the home of Sprint. It seems like if anyone was in a position to roll out broadband in Kansas, it'd be Sprint - since they've got loads of offices right next door.
Cox Cable. Mmm. They're pretty schweet, and they even tolerate us Linux Zealots. ;)
:) Especially Jim Reed.
Seriously, though, Cox's internet service is darned good, especially if they ever uncap it (is capped at 3 Mbps, as opposed to [having just moved to Iowa] Mediacom's 1.5. Gah!) And the cable network users' groups are very cool. Go NEK-CNUG! Go Wichita/SE CNUG!
All in all, it was a (mostly) fantastic ISP for the bandwidth. I still was very fond of Flint Hills, back in my dialup days, but those halcyon days are now but a memory for both of us (I needed more bandwidth; they got bought out by a not-so-nice ISP).
--Giuseppe Verde, AKA Trelane
Then, by all means, be unreasonable to them. If they are going to refuse to roll-out broadband on any scale until the Kansas legislature kills off SBC's competition, then I say the Kansas legislature should put its regulatory power to good use.
Deeming widespread availability of high-speed internet access to be critical to the economic growth of the state, they should require that all the companies that own the lines make any upgrades required to support DSL/high speed modems under penalty of losing the licenses and/or losing their right of ways.
While I tend to support deregulation in many areas of the economy, I think the actual infrastructure (roads, powerlines, water mains, etc) should be managed, or at least heavily monitored, by the government. And residential utilities need some form of regulatory safety net to prevent abuse. In Oregon there are still some incorporated towns that do not have landline phone service because Qwest won't run a line out there unless the Oregon legislature does for them what SBC wants from Kansas.
Some people say to fight fire with fire, I maintain that fire should be fought with a flamethrower.
Would it be feasible for local and state governments to make roll-out of physical broadband components a part of the civic infrastructure, like roads? Or contract separately for the physical infrastructure and the networking services? This way they could provide the conditions necessary for competition.
pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
As technology progresses and easier/cheaper implementation of broad band becomes available they're losing out at the ground floor of new customers. The bells know they can't compete and time is running out for them, it's going to be interesting watching them squirm over the next couple of years.
I see only opportunity for small start ups/or large with this desision, it's a double whammy for the bells, and you have the bells to thank for it.
No matter what kind of spin is placed on this it is extortion, I'm surprised people put up with it the way they do.
That must be right... Not many CO's here in Kansas offer DSL access; not many of the rural CO's would be as profitable (read "lucrative") for SBC as the bigger cities and towns.
I wonder what SBC would be like if it was further deregulated... For example, here in Manhattan you can get DSL from any ISP you want to: you can a.) buy DSL for $40/month from SBC, or you can b.) buy DSL from someplace else for $10/month or more *plus* $40/month to SBC. Hmm.. doesn't take a genius to figger out who people will buy from.
SBC has stated that they will now put their broadband deployment plans in Kansas on hold.
Go Kansas! Step 2: pass a law outlawing any AUP restrictions on the use of any Internet connectivity, particularly wireless. If they still want to play hardball, a meeting of the PSC would be in order. $.02 phone bills for all!
How close are you to getting your degree? Depending upon the kind of work you do, you might want to throw a resumee our way.
DSP, RF, networking, Linux. Fun stuff.
www.eFax.com are spammers
Why should it? So that companies can wait for years for approval from the feds or state authorities for something which can be done in a few weeks?
I hate communism socialism regulation. Regulation is wasting tax money, and when the government wants more to waste, they raise taxes.
http://saveie6.com/
force local number portability and free-access to numbers across all telecommunication modes, including cellular, POTS, and the upcoming VoIP stampede.
:) ...cell providers are already rocking the boat. My generation, the under-25 crowd, would rather have an apartment with no local (wired) telephone service and a cell phone than have vice versa or both. Like it or not, the local telecos are going to have to deal with this shift, and as quickly as possible. Not every bell owns a cell network.
I can't believe that when you switch providers, you lose your phone number. It is just as annoying as being locked into a one year contract with a cell provider that sucks ass (Alltel) then being penalized ($200) for trying to get out from under their organized crime ring.
Venting aside...
With all that said, I'd like to stress this as well... combine VoIP with 802.11 and you have a potentially huge threat to the current teleco infastructure, both on the cellular AND wired level. Once meshed Metro Area Networks (MANs) start to reach stability, the only entity controling the network would be the FCC, not a telecommunications company.
Imagine if Vonage made an 802.11 cell phone.
Food for thought.
"This person says you are full of shit" should point to :
this person, who says co-operative telco works better than Bell He's not the only poster saying that either.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
The people of Kansas refuse to be oppressed.
Viva la Revolution!
is NOT the way to go, especially the way these telcos are treating each other, PLUS the people that they serve...
What needs to happen is any regulation barring Co-Ops be ripped out out of the state laws, allowing for local communities that are sick and tired of being dragged around by some jerk monopoly (yes you heard me right) that resides in a 40 story glass and steel building that was built by their blood money.
Talk with your state reps and congresscritters and urge them to rescend the laws barring co-ops, like the ones that they have here in Texas.
Lets give them a BIG taste of their own medicine folks... SuckWesternBell ain't the only game in town that can provide the service, just make dammed sure that they dont stifle competition, or the ability to kick their collective butt out of your city limits when you want to go Co-Op or a completely different service.
First rule of holes; When in one, stop digging.
Ahh IFR. Good stuff. At my former work locale I was issued a new 1200S. Here we have an old 1200S that's too old to upgrade, at least cost effectively. We also have a 500.
Been to the factory dropping off and picking up units and have been by there too many times to count on K-42 taking a shortcut to Enid, OK. Good to see they're still hanging in there.
"Insanity is doing the same thing over again expecting a different result."
Sprint is actually in Overland Park, KS.
If the government would truly deregulate the phone companies, I don't think we'd have this problem.
This whole thing with "the local bell owns the wires" effectively emasculates any thoughts of deregulation. Makes it worse, in fact, as the Bell can claim that it's the competition that's driving up the prices[1], what with "competitors not paying their fair share" and such.
There are several solutions to each component of the situation.
One of the problems is that the bells usually have control of all right-of-ways. So here are some possible solutions (notice that few of these require anything but city-level involvement. This means that these are very possible to implement. This year, perhaps.):
Also, there is the problem with getting phone numbers and upstream hookup into the POTS network. I don't know much about this, I admit, but I have heard that there has been some nasty business with local bells and phone numbers. There's also been some cases where the local bell controls the hookup in the POTS network and charges exorbitant rates or provides crappy service.
If anyone in the field knows something about this second class of problems, I'd like to hear it.
And, as usual, if I'm wrong, I want to hear about it.
[1]: actually, given the shoddy accounting practices and horrible miscommunication between branches, the company as a whole might really think that it is the competition that's driving up the prices. Doubtful, but they might. Oh, that and the very poor grasp of economics that is prevalent.
Wireless works great in western Kasnas. Lots of very solid grain silos. Also its very cheap to dig trenches in Kansas.
I find it interesting that no one has pointed out that Kansas is the home of Sprint. I'm not sure how this impacts the situation, but it is probably a factor.
I'm still a couple of years out from graduation so that's going to be a while, but I'm always looking for a good internship :-)
Trying is the First Step to Failing --Homer Simpson
Kansas House of Representatives that oversees the telecomm industry has voted against such deregulation, citing concerns on monopolies and competition...
...SBC has stated that they will now put their broadband deployment plans in Kansas on hold.
Translation:
"We're not a monopoly, nor will this make us more of one. Now, if you don't do exactly what we want, we'll use the monopoly that we don't have to punish you."
Looks like Kansas were right then - they just should have stopped the Baby Bells years ago, before they got this bad. A lesson that's probably worth learning by all of the other states that are bending over and lubing up.
Maybe it's my laissez-fair sentiments, but why-oh-why do you want to return to a system where the Baby Bells are once again are granted EXCLUSIVE access to a PUBLIC infrastructure.
...but going back to government sanctioned monopolies (sanction with exclusive access to the infrastucture) is definitely the worse of two evils.
You do make a good argument, in that Baby Bells should be able to invest in THIER (not the public's) infrastructure, and not have to worry about sharing it with people who have no interests in recouping on the investment. That's perfectly clear.
"Communism is like having one [local] phone company " - Lenny Bruce
... the situation sucks. I've got decent broadband, because I live within rock-throwing distance of the center of Kansas' largest city. Go just a few miles out into the suburbs, and you're stuck with ~24K dialup. The cable company isn't much better... you get a satellite dish or an antenna mast if you want more than broadcast, so don't even think about a cable modem. I don't even want to think about what it'd be like in a rural area. I've pointed a lot of people at the various co-op articles Slashdot has had.
I've heard horror stories about SBC's DSL, though; we're lucky enough to be on a better local provider, but I think we just got bumped back to SBC for some of our connectivity since our dry-copper-pair provider went belly-up last week.
Slashdot's token middle-aged housewife
1. Give back the public infrastructure built by public money (gov't subsidies).
2. Let the Baby Bells build thier OWN friggin' infrastructure, just like the Cable Companies.
3. Do away with these Right of Way laws (supported by the baby bells) and ALLOW incumabants build thier own COMPETITIVE networks.
What you don't understand, is that that LAST thing the Baby Bells want is to compete like cable companies. They want EXCLUSIVE access to the PUBLIC's network, so they can charge as much as they want.
They have it rigged so couldn't build a competing network EVEN IF YOU WANTED TO...
Don't be a sucker... What the Baby Bells is far worse than your worst communist nightmare.
"Communism is like having one [local] phone company " - Lenny Bruce
I think your ideas is a truely wonderful and inspiring idea. I was equally inspired by the same idea when I had it 10 years ago.
:)
SBC and friends will NEVER agree to this. These guys will fight tooth and nail to make sure you do not build an incombant network.
This is worse to them than having them resell phone lines.
I honestly think the Baby Bells should suffer, and severely. These companies need to be severely devalued.
Let the current system take effect for a couple of years, and lets give thier business to the cable companies and wireless providers, and then maybe they'll be a little more willing to talk about your idea.
"Communism is like having one [local] phone company " - Lenny Bruce
It's not the government, no matter how much they want to tell you that.
The reason the baby bells have to lease thier lines to competition BELOW profit, is because the baby bells have been leasing thier lines to themselves (FOR DSL Service), BELOW PROFIT.
By doing this, they were selling thier DSL service at a nice discount the CLECs (Covad) couldn't compete with.
After enough complaining, the gov't realized the problem, and forced the baby bells to give the CLECs (Covad) the same discount the baby bells were giving itself.
So, If the Bells want to stop leasing thier lines below profit, them all they have to do is stop leasing to themselves below profit.
In other words, they're blaming the government for the pain they inflicting on themselves. THEY ARE THAT SLEAZY!!
Don't you feel like a sucker now?
"Communism is like having one [local] phone company " - Lenny Bruce
1. They didn't exactly "pay" for the lines. They were granted priceless government right-of-way in addition to extensive government subsidies. "Subsidies" means "Your tax dollars paid for a private monopoly to build these lines.
2. If it breaks, it is SBC's job to fix it. Problem is, they don't. They've left my line unusable for DSL (although Covad has told them how to fix it repeatedly) for three years. The state of Indiana has repeatedly sanctioned them for being lax with line maintenance, and after several years, has lambasted them again for not even living up to their promises to fix things when they were punished the first time. It's not just DSL-- people here were living with broken phone lines for months without fixes from Ameritech/SBC.
If they can't live up to the deal made that granted them all this money and a monopoly in the first place, they don't deserve to have it.
What you are witnessing with SBC and every other Baby Bell is a hostage situation where they have taken themselves hostage.
Sounds insane???? It is insane, read on...
You see, SBC and Verizon have a seperate DSL Internet business that competes with CLEC (Competitive Local Exchange Carriers, ie. Covad) whom invest in thier own DSL equipment just like the Baby Bells, and set up thier own DSL offices just like the Baby Bells, but they have to lease phone lines from the Baby Bells to make it work.
SBC and Verizon were leasing these phone lines to THEMSELVES below profit for years, to give themselves a competitive advantage over the CLECs (Covad). Essentially, this was one of MANY anti-competitive loopholes to shutout competitive incombants.
The regulators caught on to this trick, and recently forced SBC and Verizon to play fair by either offering the CLECs (Covad) the same discount, or stop giving thier own DSL company the discount. Either way, the Baby Bells have to lease the lines at the same rate they lease it to themselves.
You see, SBC and Verizon doesn't actually have to lease the phone lines below profit. What they have done is taking themselves hostage, and told everybody the government made them lease thier lines at under-a-profit to sucker everybody into thier they're getting an unfair shake.
I'm all for allowing telecommunications companies recouping on thier investments, but I'm not stupid enough to believe the Baby Bells lies at face value.
YOU, LIKE MANY OTHERS, HAVE BEEN SUCKERED
"Communism is like having one [local] phone company " - Lenny Bruce
First of all, I'm with you, I hate regulation. I'm a liberatian at heart, and the first thing I'd like to see is for this entire industry to be deregulated, however I'm not naive enough to let SBC and Verizon dictate the terms, because I know they don't want to deregulate EVERYTHING.
SBC wants to tell you that thier competitiors should built thier own network with thier own investments.
However.
SBC supports Right of Way laws and regulation which keeps incombants from building thier own networks. (Try building your own phone/DSL network in your town, and see how far you get before SBC's lawyers hunt you down)
Q. How can you truely deregulate the local telecommunications industry if you're going to allow incumbants to build thier own networks?
A. You can't. You just end up re-regulating a single monopoly.
"Communism is like having one [local] phone company " - Lenny Bruce
Yes, I do stand corrected. They are in Overland Park, KS. However, they've still got a large presence in KC, Missouri - last time I checked.
I knew quite a few people working in Sprint buildings in KC.
Oh well.... either way, they're right there on the border.