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
I fully support the idea of belling babies, in principle. I've had these little bastards sneak up on me before with their deceptively cute little eyes and sharp little growing incisors, and I can say from uncomfortable experience that it's just not pretty When Babies Attack.
The question is, who's got the guts to do it?
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
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...
From the article (the first one linked):
The political maneuvering is somewhat of a pre-emptive strike.
I agree that a pre-emptive strike is probably necessary in this instance. Until the Baby Bells can prove without a reasonable doubt that they've destroyed all of their WOMD (women of mass dialing - the telemarkers), we should bomb (phreak) them repeatedly.
--sex
Very popular slashdot journal for adul
"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.
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.
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'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.
"Insanity is doing the same thing over again expecting a different result."
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?
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).
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.
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.
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.
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
There are always four sides to every story: your side, their side, the truth, and what really happened.
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.
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.
Trying is the First Step to Failing --Homer Simpson
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.
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.
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!
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.