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."
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?
"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.
-----
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.
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.
I don't think it's really extortion, since it's unlikely they would build out broadband if they _did_ have exclusivity on their lines. Here's why:
The bells have copper going everywhere. It's very expensive to run new cables places, even without right-of-way considerations. That huge expense is the reason that it took so long for many cable companies to offer broadband in many areas (Cablevision still doesn't offer it in all their areas, I think). If you don't already have right-of-way, it's extremely unfeasible to run new cables. That's why the telecomm act required the bells to share their lines in the first place.
So, assuming for the moment this passed... why would the bells bother developing a new broadband network? Once they have exclusive use of those lines, what competition is forcing them to invest the money... rather than just jacking up the prices?
As Teletruth shows bells have defaulted on their promises in the past, choosing to rake in profits from their existing infrastructure rather than invest in new (expensive) work, even when they're allowed to charge for the infrastructure work!
You might say that cable modems are the competition that would drive them to invest, but so far the only response I've seen from Verizon is a bunch of ads telling how much worse cable modems are, while their service is the same price but slower, and not even available for my apartment. (6-year old construction, too... not like we were in an old neighborhood or something.)
Either way the legislation goes for the bells, I doubt their customers have to worry about seeing broadband any time soon.
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."
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.
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.