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.

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.