Kentucky Telephone Companies Pushing For Option To End Basic Service 157
An anonymous reader writes "There is a bill pending in the Kentucky State Senate that would eliminate almost all Public Service Commission oversight over local phone companies. Written by AT&T lobbyists, SB135 is being pushed by the phone companies as a 'modernization' of rules. It would keep the PSC from investigating phone service on its own and eliminate rules concerning price discrimination, price increases, required published rates, and performance objectives. It also will prevent any state agency from imposing net neutrality, and will enable phone companies to use the fact that there are cell phones to refuse to run a land line. The text of the bill is available online."
Sure (Score:4, Interesting)
I can see allowing them to do all that, as soon as they are no longer the only choice in town, oh and all the subsidies that the government paid for installing the lines need to be paid back as well.
About time. (Score:5, Interesting)
This is the fate of the US phone system. Once there are fewer than a basic minimum number of subscribers it will become extremely unprofitable to even maintain the wires that have connected the country for 80+ years. You can assume that the wires will not be maintained out of charity.
Best be getting a cell phone is what that means. Oh, your rural area is underserved by cell towers? Too bad, that. Better move to the city where service is better.
Did you not think flight from landline service would have consequences? It sure does, and it is really going to suck for some people. Aren't you glad you dropped your land line ages ago?
There is no way the government can somehow force the telephone companies to maintain service at a huge loss. They aren't going to do it. And that means the end of the universal nature of the US phone system. This is a direct outgrowth of people dropping land line (regulated) service for an unregulated cell phone service.
Re:Most rural population is most expensive (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm normally a peaceful guy, but this one calls for a flogging (at the polls).
Re:Most rural population is most expensive (Score:3, Interesting)
I really don't understand why people aren't taking this into their own hands. Why limit yourself to wireless or nothing at all? Lay fiber. It really is not hard. Rural communities must have people who know how to move dirt. Commercially that's the most expensive part. I'm sure you'll find a bunch of geeks who would love to learn by doing the rest, except the dirt moving bit. Phone service is trivial once you have steady and fast internet access. That's what VoIP is for.
Re:Open up their network for competition. (Score:2, Interesting)
Running cable multiple times is just ridiculous. You want every company to repeat what the previous company did, really? Sure, let's duplicate every bit of infrastructure multiple times for the sake of competition, what a great idea.
The government should build and manage the infrastructure and rent it out to companies to provide services on top of. That way, the cost of entering the market is lowered and lean and mean can beat fat and lazy.
Deregulation or rural phone service: pick 1 (Score:2, Interesting)
A debate on this would be fun to watch. The set of Rand Paul supporters should be in favor of the proposed bill on libertarian grounds, while the set of people who live in rural areas (and can foresee the inevitable price spike and service cuts that would follow adoption of the bill) would make for lively opposite sides. The fun part will be watching those in the intersection of these sets wrestle with the idea. Unfortunately, the bill's sponsor has forseen the service cuts. From TFA: "The bill's sponsor, Sen. Paul Hornback, R-Shelbyville, said he doesn't want households to lose any existing phone service. Hornback said he will change the language in his bill to make that clear". Of course, Senator Hornback's wants don't count - only what's in the bill counts. If the bill passes, the fun part will be watching the phone companies weasel their way out of providing service while sticking to the letter of the law.
Re:The real scandal (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't have that kind of money.
According to recent news stories, the ante is $100,000 just to get in the door of these SuperPACs. Have you noticed how the GOP primary race has become a contest between billionaires? Each candidate has their own billionaire as a patron. Santorum has the Fries guy, Gingrich has the Las Vegas casino owner. Romney has Hank Paulson and Goldman Sachs. Seriously, there has been news story after news story about how this or that billionaire is keeping this or that candidate "in the race".
How did we ever have elections without billionaires?