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

How to Interpret Public Relations Speak

[FunWithHeadlines]

When faced with corporate PR talk, it is helpful to have a handy interpreter nearby to translate into normal English:

"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.
-----

Re:How to Interpret Public Relations Speak

[scoove]

Yes, SBC's decision not nto improve broadband is a real win for Kansas consumers.

Actually, it really is. It sends a message to consumers that SBC isn't interested in their communities, but rather has become an anonymous monolith, too used to 60%+ margins commanded with little effort.

I've had a similar issue with a larger incumbant independent in one state promising DSL for three years now to several small (under 5,000) communities, when the rest of us knew there was no way. Every month, it was "next month" and they always put out an attractive low price to keep people from subscribing to competitors. More than a year later, we're finally seeing some of these holdout consumers quit waiting - sad as it may be to see such abused yet persistent believers.

By allowing consumers to see thru this masquerade, it allows them to more quickly shift their dollars to smaller, community-focused companies that are investing and building new infrastructure. Better to send the business this way - the RBOCs haven't had an interest other than themselves since deregulation.

Time to slaughter this beast.

*scoove*

Cheap move

[TheRealFixer]

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.

An alternative suggestion

[kien]

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.

<Nelson> - HA HA!

[wowbagger]

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.

Serves 'em right!

[Genady]

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.

Re:Let them compete like cable companies

[Nate B.]

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.

Re:In support of SBC

[Nate B.]

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.