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."
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
"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.
-----
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.
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.
I agree, maybe the state should just step in annex the lines and revoke the right of ways they've make possible. The phone companies have been extorting states for years, claiming ownership of the lines that were built with HUGE government subsidies and tax monies. Time to offer the contract to run them to someone else for a chnage and see how the so-called phone companies like that stuff...
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
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
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?
Obviously, you're not an SBC "customer"...
To have allowed this bill to pass as SBC wanted it would have been irresponsible on the part of the legislature to SBC's existing and (perhaps smaller number of) future broadband customers. Passage of this bill would have effectively neutered the Kansas Corporation Commission (not that they aren't already in the hip pocket of SBC, but that's another story) from acting on matters on behalf of Kansas residents.
Perhaps the bill's dismissal was a mistake, but SBC is not the entity to give this kind of lattitude to.
BTW, we have a couple wireless broadband carriers established in the area and one is going to expand toward my future home this spring, so I'm looking forward to it.
"Insanity is doing the same thing over again expecting a different result."
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.
I'll preface this with the fact I work for SBC, though I'm just a Unix admin w/o much connection to the telecom part of the business per se (outside of my paycheck). My views are mine and have no relevance to the views of my employer.
How is this extortion of any kind? You have a business environment that is not conducive to profit, so a business does not invest in expanding to that environment. It happens in every industry on earth. There is a reason why you don't find Nordstrom's in my hometown of 7000 farmers.
Why does it matter what conditions cause the bad environment? In this case it is government regulations, it could just as easily had been market conditions or geographic limitations. Broadband internet access is not a vital service, so the Bells should not be required to provide it to anyone. Further more, DSL shouldn't be regulated because it is not a natural monopoly like POTS. How many ways can you get broadband today? Cable, satellite, 802.11x, power lines...
So why again should the telecom companies be forced to give the competition access to their infrastructure? If the competition wants to get into the broadband business so badly, let them either invest in another technology or lease lines from the RBOC at the price the market will bear.
Flame away with your hate and disdain for SBC and other telcos...
Scott, Keeper of the Crystal Flame
I really hate to disagree, but SBC is not the only entity that understands line upkeep and has the ability to maitain an extensive telecommunications infrastructure. There are quite a number of independent and cooperative telcos in areas of Kansas that AT&T/Southwestern Bell deemed beneath their dignity in the early part of the last century that are doing quite well, thank you.
It may come as quite a shock, but these non-SBC entities generally have a more modern infrastructure and employ new technologies sooner than SBC has in the past (this excludes the Sprint owned telcos in Kansas). The reality is that SBC is a large corporation with a large marketing dept.
Many years ago my uncle who lives about two miles from my folks but are on one of the independent telcos had a private line and touch tone as standard service over a decade before it was standard service to SBC customers. SBC, doesn't lead, they haven't lead, and they won't lead. They won't offer leading edge service unless forced kicking and screaming (witness SBC-Kansas president Tomlin's childish reaction).
I understand your emotional connection to the topic at hand, but SBC is hardly a shining example of a leading telecommunications company.
"Insanity is doing the same thing over again expecting a different result."
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.
Because there IS a monopoly. Maybe it's not Bell's fault for being a monopoly (I'm not sure of the history here), but you either force them to "subsidize" the competition, or else the consumer pays through the nose.
Here in Ontario, Bell would have used its power to take losses on DSL provision, setting the price below cost, in order to have a monopoly in that area. Thanks to what looks like actions of the Canadian Association of Internet Providers (just did a quick google search here, wasn't certain of the background), I have a choice for DSL in Toronto. I have very little choice when it comes to cable providers, as they're not regulated. Take a quick trip to www.canadianisp.com, and check out the number of DSL and cable providers in Toronto. 51 DSL providers, 1 cable provider. Which do you think is better for consumer?
"Now gluttony and exploitation serves eight!" - TV's Frank
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.
In principle, I'm inclined to agree--the less regulation, the better. However, the software industry is unregulated and we have a convicted monopolist in it. Fortunately, things seem to be tipping ever so slowly back into a competitive landscape.
Unfortunately, recent history has shown that companies that formerly operated in a regulated environment when turned loose became rather destructive in short order. SBC is a wannabe Worldcom/Enron. Their impressive list of aquisitions in the past few years and their strongarm tactics in the states they are operating in is a testament to this.
Being employed in telecom, I do have reservations about local govenment bodies owning/maintaining the local telecom infrastructure. There are far too many required standards and far too many interface points to allow a street/sewer department approach to the problem.
Either any company that requests right-of-way for copper/fiber gets it, or a regulated monopoly gets it. Allowing a de-regulated monopoly in this situation is simply asking for disaster. And while a de-regulated company is *supposed* to play by the rules and obey the law, there is still a generation of upper management that just wants to try to play the Enron/Worldcom game again.
Finally, in response to your politely worded question. I deal with SBC in my work life. I've witnessed their service with attitude for many a year. I'm glad they didn't get what they wanted this time. Yeah, it'll be back and they'll likely get what they want in the near future, particularly if their whining attitude results in a pro-SBC public backlash toward the legislature.
To really put the finishing touches on this issue the legislature should allow the independent telcos to string up their own infrastructure in the SBC service areas strictly for broadband access. The independent Kansas telcos did this roughly 20 years ago at the start of the cellular business by cooperatively forming Kansas Cellular and building it into nearly a state-wide network, except the three large metro areas, Wichita, Topeka, and Lawrence to KC, which, naturally, SBC claimed as their own. They later sold Kansas Cellular to Alltel for a tidy sum about four years ago. On the other hand, a local independent telco is actively building its own broadband wireless network that covers the local SBC served area. So this ought to prove interesting.
That's what the fsck I'm talking about!
"Insanity is doing the same thing over again expecting a different result."