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
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...
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.
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).
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.
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.
"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."
We've already in the middle of former. AT&T and Bell were the same company, but the courts split them up between multiple local carriers and multiple long-distance carriers. Here's what's happened so far:
AT&T: "Hey, this long-distance stuff is great! Even with the new competition, we're still making money hand over fist! I'm glad I don't have to deal with money-losing local service any more!"
Baby Bells: "Damn! I want in on that long-distance stuff, too!"
Government: "Too bad. There was a reason we split you up."
Baby Bells: "Please?"
Government: "No."
Baby Bells: "Pretty please?"
Government: "No."
Baby Bells: "Fine. I'll just hold my breath and not upgrade anything, leaving the country using decades-old technology on the local loops. See if I care."
Government: "Upgrade."
Baby Bells: "No."
Government: "Upgrade."
Baby Bells: "No."
Government: "UPGRADE!"
Baby Bells: "Only if you let us get in on the long-distance action. Alas, we're afraid that it's just too expensive otherwise..."
Government: "... Oh, alright. But on one condition: You have to let other businesses compete with you on the local loops. By leasing them your equipment."
Baby Bells: "Huh? What the heck are you smoking?"
Government: "Take it or leave it."
Baby Bells: "Fine. But we won't like it!"
(a few years pass)
Baby Bells: "This whole leasing business sucks ass. Why the hell do we have to let the competition use our stuff, anyway? The worst is that we have to do this crap with the new 'internet access' thing as well. Every time we upgrade the network, our competition gets access to the same upgraded network we do. To hell with it, we'll just not upgrade."
Government: "Europe is ahead of us in broadband. Upgrade."
Baby Bells: "No."
Government: "Canada is ahead of us in broadband. Upgrade."
Baby Bells: "No."
Government: "South Korea is ahead of us in broadband. Upgrade now, dammit! Hell, you haven't even upgraded from the last time we had this argument!"
Baby Bells: "Only if you let us keep a monoply on the broadband services. Alas, we're afraid that it's just too expensive otherwise...
Government: "What you talkin' 'bout, Willis? What part of 'Telecommunications Act of 1996' are you having trouble with?"
Baby Bells: "Oh, we know we need to be opening ourselves up to competition. And we're really trying, too! But do you think there's a way where we can open ourselves up to competition and... well... you know... not?"
Government: "I don't know... Will you really hold up your end of the bargain this time?"
And that's where we are today. The problem with the model you're suggesting is that the two monopoliess you'd end up with would still be corporations and still be beholden to shareholders more than their customers, and it's always more profitable for them to extort their customers than to cater to their customers' needs. One of the ventures will be more profitable than the other, and the loser will lie, cheat and steal until they're able to compete in the more profitable areas without relinquishing their existing monopolies. You can go ahead and split ILECs into hardware ownership and service providing corporations, but that division of functions between the two will be all but gone in thirty years, leaving us exactly where we started back in the 1960's: A corporation abusing it's monopoly powers in one field to stifle competition in another, with the ultimate losers being the customers.
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.
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!