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."

Comments

Up yours SBC!

[Nate B.]

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.

Kansan Perspective

[benntop]

This has actually been an issue for years. Want to know why so many legislators were against the bill? Mostly because in the last five years SBC has repeatedly lied to them about broadband deplyoment in rural areas of Kansas. The House has been trying to develop incentives to get SBC and others to install DSL and other high speed services to the most remote parts of the state. Today's bill was the lobbyists trying to capitalize on the needs of the people of Kansas.

I am a Kansan, and SBC can suck it.

Well here in...

[bob670]

Cleveland (also known as the asshole of the universe) I watched Ameritech basically kill Northpoint and Covalent off by abusing their already entrenched monopoly power. I have several executives who requested DSL for their home access a couple years ago. Since Network Admin means "anything that plugs into anything" at my place, this fell to me. I went to my preferred ISP and they couldn't do it, then went to another and another and finally found a local who could come through. They handled everything on the backend (and I wanted as little involvement as possible, I have enough to do), so they contacted Ameritech (now SBC round these parts) to verify and make any changes to the line, and Northpoint to handle from the curb to the house.

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.

Just a little bit south...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

The myth of "under-cost" by the ILECs...

[trims]

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

The Alternatives will prevail

[LinuxOnHal]

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.

Re:Broadband deployments?

[LinuxOnHal]

The issue is, there are not very many DSL capable central offices in the first place, let alone repeaters on the end of their lines. It sounds to me that they are going to refuse to upgrade the rest of the CO's. The bad part is, in a way, the consumers lose something either way.

Check out this map of capable CO's in Kansas, on DSL Reports.