Baby Bell Deregulation Bill Fails To Pass In Kansas 208
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."
RICOH Act ? (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Re:RICOH Act ? (Score:5, Interesting)
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 [newnetworks.com] 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.
Re:RICOH Act ? (Score:2)
Deregulation is a license to rob and loot. You give the corporations such licenses, and they will use them just like Enron, Worldcom, Clear Channel, and the like.
Re:RICOH Act ? (Score:2, Insightful)
How is this extortion of any kind? You have a business environment that is not conducive to profit, so a business does not invest in expanding to that environment. It happens in every industry on earth. There is a reason why you don't find Nordstrom's in my hometown of 7000 farmers.
Why does it matter what conditions cause the bad environment? In this case it is government regulations, it could just as easily had been market conditions or geographic limitations. Broadband internet access is not a vital service, so the Bells should not be required to provide it to anyone. Further more, DSL shouldn't be regulated because it is not a natural monopoly like POTS. How many ways can you get broadband today? Cable, satellite, 802.11x, power lines...
So why again should the telecom companies be forced to give the competition access to their infrastructure? If the competition wants to get into the broadband business so badly, let them either invest in another technology or lease lines from the RBOC at the price the market will bear.
Flame away with your hate and disdain for SBC and other telcos...
Re:RICOH Act ? (Score:2)
Are we talking about the same DSL that uses the same copper wires that your POTS does, the DSL you cannot get if the company that owns the last mile telephone wires doesn't want to offer DSL to you?
I don't know how "natural" it is, but DSL is just as much a monopoly as POTS if a single company gets to decide whether it's available at your location.
They may not have a monopoly on broadband, but they have a monopoly on broadband via DSL if they can control whether DSL is available.
Good plan (Score:5, Funny)
The question is, who's got the guts to do it?
Re:Good plan (Score:2)
--The Waco Kid
Re:Good plan (Score:2)
True story (according to my mom, I was too young to remember): my brother is 1.5 years younger than me. I could walk before him, so I would take his toys and walk away and start playing with them. He would crawl up behind me and bite me on the back.
Quote about sharing, which in retrospect is quite relevant -- the Baby Bells need to share their monopoly with other providers if they want to be able to compete.
Re:Good plan (Score:2)
The last thing they want to do is compete. They want the market all to themselves. Besides, is it still a monopoly if it's shared?
Broadband deployments? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Broadband deployments? (Score:2, Informative)
Check out this map of capable CO's in Kansas, on DSL Reports. [dslreports.com]
Re:Broadband deployments? (Score:2)
The issue is, there are not very many DSL capable central offices in the first place
Good point. It's not like they were serving the customer well.
Re:Broadband deployments? (Score:2)
Assuming of course that they live somewhere where the local phone company can be bothered to offer DSL.
No new deployment plans? (Score:2)
Re:No new deployment plans? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:No new deployment plans? (Score:2)
Anytime a monoploy gets out of hand, they should have their network (cables in the ground, exchange buildings) grabbed under the concept of imminent domain and then they can either provide the service the state PUC agreeded to or take their switching gear and leave. There are other people who can get a phone excahnge up and running real quick and theres in nearly infinite supply that would be willing to sign up under these rules.
Re:No new deployment plans? (Score:2)
Re:No new deployment plans? (Score:2)
> in improving broadband in Kansas. Who really lost?
The people lost, the government and coproration wins.
This is the USA, its not surprising in the least anymore. This is what our country is setup to do.
promises promises (Score:5, Interesting)
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...
Re:promises promises (Score:3, Interesting)
They're probably worried that as soon as they build it, they'll be forced to open it up to everybody else before they can recoup their investment in it. That's a legitimate argument. It's a very expensive investment to build a data network. What's the point in doing it if you're building it for your competitors to use?
I can certainly see that point of view. If you're the only one big enough to build something, and you build it, you're a monopoly and that just isn't fair.
Re:promises promises (Score:2)
No.
If i could go out and run wires to provide DSL (or whatever) services over, then yes it would be a vaild argument.
The government claims i have no right to do this, only the phone co has a right to do that.
Well, for exchange for this "right", they better fucking stop bitching and DO THAT.
They bitch and moan they want to be the only one allowed to place wires to peoples home.
This is the cost, they HAVE TO DO IT no matter who asks, them, their competition, the govt, anyone.
Re:promises promises (Score:2)
So by your argument having no network is more "fair" than having a monopoly controlled one?
If a monopoly is the only way to bring service, then a monopoly should be allowed. Service to some people is better than no service at all.
Brian
Re:promises promises (Score:2)
Actually, that was the point I was trying to make, but I phrased it badly. It seems like you can only provide a service if other people can compete with you. If they can't compete with you, then they cry monopoly.
Investing in Government Regulated Monopolies - BAD (Score:2)
You do make a good argument, in that Baby Bells should be able to invest in THIER (not the public's) infrastructure, and not have to worry about sharing it with people who have no interests in recouping on the investment. That's perfectly clear.
Pre-emptive strike... (Score:4, Funny)
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 [slashdot.org]
Re:Pre-emptive strike... (Score:2)
How to Interpret Public Relations Speak (Score:5, Insightful)
"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 (Score:3, Insightful)
What, like Qwest in Nebraska and Iowa, where a state governor has to threaten regulatory action in order to free up a T1 for a large manufacturer?
Where infrastructure investment has been slow for over a decade, attrition is taking its tool and minimal maintenance is the most to expect for?
Geez... if SBC can't keep up with that, I don't know what to think. Then again, maybe some companies just can't compete absent monopoly...
*scoove*
Re:How to Interpret Public Relations Speak (Score:2)
""The big losers today are the people of Kansas" -- Translation: The big winners today are the people of Kansas."
Yes, SBC's decision not nto improve broadband is a real win for Kansas consumers.
The only intelligent thing you said is "er, because we care about our profits above all". That's exactly why they're saying fuck you Kansas. If we can't own our own network, why bother builidng it.
Re:How to Interpret Public Relations Speak (Score:5, Insightful)
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*
Re:How to Interpret Public Relations Speak (Score:2)
I don't believe this is the case. Utilities are considered to be "natural monopolies" [auburn.edu].
Re: Kansas and broadband (Score:2)
First of all, Kansas is a fairly spread-out, sparsely populated state. Not the environment that encourages broadband deployments right now.....
It sounds to me like the people of Kansas made the right decision by rejecting Bell's power-play. The fact is, Bell hasn't and isn't going to offer them much more than they're getting right now. Their best hope for the future is to minimize Bell's power over telecommunications, so a new, 3rd. party, will hopefully rise up and provide high speed internet connections.
Secondly, right on the eastern border of Kansas lies Kansas City, Missouri - the home of Sprint. It seems like if anyone was in a position to roll out broadband in Kansas, it'd be Sprint - since they've got loads of offices right next door.
stupid. (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
fixed link. (Score:2)
this person, who says co-operative telco works better than Bell [slashdot.org] He's not the only poster saying that either.
Re:stupid. (Score:2)
Cheap move (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Cheap move (Score:2)
Let them compete like cable companies (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:Let them compete like cable companies (Score:3, Insightful)
To have allowed this bill to pass as SBC wanted it would have been irresponsible on the part of the legislature to SBC's existing and (perhaps smaller number of) future broadband customers. Passage of this bill would have effectively neutered the Kansas Corporation Commission (not that they aren't already in the hip pocket of SBC, but that's another story) from acting on matters on behalf of Kansas residents.
Perhaps the bill's dismissal was a mistake, but SBC is not the entity to give this kind of lattitude to.
BTW, we have a couple wireless broadband carriers established in the area and one is going to expand toward my future home this spring, so I'm looking forward to it.
Re:Let them compete like cable companies (Score:2)
And do you know why we require them to subsidize competition? Because they own all the phone lines! Period! It doesn't matter who your local or long-distance telephone provider is, every single call into, out of, or within the entire state of Kansas is on SBC wires. We call them (and all the other Baby Bells, like Verizon and Bellsouth and such) a monopoly because that is exactly what they are, complete with a government mandate to do so.
"Cable is the ONLY way to get it in many areas."
Another government-mandated monopoly.
Personally, I'm beginning to think the only solution to the Baby Bell and CATV provider problem is to take away the physical wires and give them to the state proper. These services are essentially a requirement in this day and age, they got to run their wiring through eminent domain to begin with, so why not take away their wires and let them just be service providers just like everybody else? Anything else is a conflict of interest.
Re:Let them compete like cable companies (Score:3, Insightful)
Here in Ontario, Bell would have used its power to take losses on DSL provision, setting the price below cost, in order to have a monopoly in that area. Thanks to what looks like actions of the Canadian Association of Internet Providers [www.caip.ca] (just did a quick google search here, wasn't certain of the background), I have a choice for DSL in Toronto. I have very little choice when it comes to cable providers, as they're not regulated. Take a quick trip to www.canadianisp.com [canadianisp.com], and check out the number of DSL and cable providers in Toronto. 51 DSL providers, 1 cable provider. Which do you think is better for consumer?
Ok. LET them compete JUST like cable companies.. (Score:2)
2. Let the Baby Bells build thier OWN friggin' infrastructure, just like the Cable Companies.
3. Do away with these Right of Way laws (supported by the baby bells) and ALLOW incumabants build thier own COMPETITIVE networks.
What you don't understand, is that that LAST thing the Baby Bells want is to compete like cable companies. They want EXCLUSIVE access to the PUBLIC's network, so they can charge as much as they want.
They have it rigged so couldn't build a competing network EVEN IF YOU WANTED TO...
Don't be a sucker... What the Baby Bells is far worse than your worst communist nightmare.
Isn't this already Monopolistic Behavior? (Score:2, Insightful)
An alternative suggestion (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:An alternative suggestion (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously, if the last mile is the most expensive and prohibitive part, doesn't it make sense that it should be in the hands of a regulated monopoly, government owned or otherwise?
Re:An alternative suggestion (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:An alternative suggestion (Score:2)
The Restrictions in Question (Score:2)
Meaning they take losses every time someone else leases lines from them to turn around at sell at prices below the profit levels of SBC.
That was the problem/question of the day at the Kansas Legislature.
Of course, I'd like to see broadband come to Kansas beyond the three larger areas (Kansas City, Wichita, and Topeka) but hey, I guess us midwestern folks don't need it as badly.
Up yours SBC! (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Up yours SBC! (Score:2)
Personally what I think needs to happen is that local government's need to lay their own fiber and then let other companies (unregulated) offer services over that fiber.
You do know that de-regulation doesn't mean that companies are free to do what ever they want;right. they still have to operate within the law.
So what the fuck are you talking about!
Re:Up yours SBC! (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunately, recent history has shown that companies that formerly operated in a regulated environment when turned loose became rather destructive in short order. SBC is a wannabe Worldcom/Enron. Their impressive list of aquisitions in the past few years and their strongarm tactics in the states they are operating in is a testament to this.
Being employed in telecom, I do have reservations about local govenment bodies owning/maintaining the local telecom infrastructure. There are far too many required standards and far too many interface points to allow a street/sewer department approach to the problem.
Either any company that requests right-of-way for copper/fiber gets it, or a regulated monopoly gets it. Allowing a de-regulated monopoly in this situation is simply asking for disaster. And while a de-regulated company is *supposed* to play by the rules and obey the law, there is still a generation of upper management that just wants to try to play the Enron/Worldcom game again.
Finally, in response to your politely worded question. I deal with SBC in my work life. I've witnessed their service with attitude for many a year. I'm glad they didn't get what they wanted this time. Yeah, it'll be back and they'll likely get what they want in the near future, particularly if their whining attitude results in a pro-SBC public backlash toward the legislature.
To really put the finishing touches on this issue the legislature should allow the independent telcos to string up their own infrastructure in the SBC service areas strictly for broadband access. The independent Kansas telcos did this roughly 20 years ago at the start of the cellular business by cooperatively forming Kansas Cellular and building it into nearly a state-wide network, except the three large metro areas, Wichita, Topeka, and Lawrence to KC, which, naturally, SBC claimed as their own. They later sold Kansas Cellular to Alltel for a tidy sum about four years ago. On the other hand, a local independent telco is actively building its own broadband wireless network that covers the local SBC served area. So this ought to prove interesting.
That's what the fsck I'm talking about!
WOW (Score:2)
On a more related note, the only other facilities based carrier pulled out of the residential market last year. Birch Telecom will be missed.
There are other companies, but most are simply reselling other SBC services. Sprint and MCI Neighborhood are the ones who come to mind.
It would be interesting to see if our Attorney General had anything to do with this. As I remember she was involved in keeping Kansas involved in the Microsoft antitrust suite going, despite being a Republican and generally in the "pro business" camp.
Re:WOW (Score:2)
I lived there for 27 years, where's my prestige dammit!
Seriously, I've got people in my family that live in Kansas and still have party lines where they live.
<Nelson> - HA HA! (Score:4, Insightful)
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 [slashdot.org] 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.
Re: - HA HA! (Score:2)
No such thing in the United States. Your service provider may not be a Baby Bell, but a Baby Bell owns the physical wire.
"Believe it or not, SBC, but you are NOT the only game in town."
When it comes down to the physical wires, yes, they are. By law.
"The independant telcos are doing MUCH BETTER [slashdot.org] at deploying DSL than you are!"
Only when the Baby Bells let them by upgrading the hardware.
I'm sorry (Score:2)
There are plenty of independant phone companies out there, and they DO own the wire.
There is no "law" in the US to the contrary.
I would suggest you go recheck your sources.
You see, MY sources are actual OWNERS of the telephone company. So I think they know just a bit more about the subject than you do.
Re:I'm sorry (Score:2)
And I spent all too much time late last year pouring over the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
In the United States, there are "Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers" (ILECs) and "Competitive Local Exchange Carriers" (CLECs). The ILECs are the "Baby Bells" that everybody knows and loves. They're called "Baby Bells" because they are what's left after the Bell Telephone Coorporation was forcibly broken up by the federal courts a few decades ago. They were broken up by anti-trust laws because they had a monopoly on local telephone service in the United States.
Instead of being broken up into competing interests (like AT&T), instead they were broken up into regional monopolies (called ILECs), each having a monopoly in a number of states but none of them allowed to operate outside their designated regions. SBC is one of those companies.
Around 1996, in an effort to deal with the problems of these little monopolies, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was passed, which brought about the concept of CLECs. The Act allows competing phone service providers to offer service to customers. In order to do that, the Act requires the ILECs to lease the use of their hardware to these competing interests (terms to be dictated by federal and state governments).
While the CLECs may be competing with the Baby Bells in offering services, they do it by leasing Baby Bell hardware. This introduces conflicts of interest, where the Baby Bell is required to maintain leased equipment for the competing CLECs. This is why it can be so difficult to get things straightened out if you have a problem with DSL service: The CLEC and the ILEC spend a few days blaming each other for the service problems before anything starts to get done.
So it doesn't matter worth a damn what your "sources" say. They may own the company, but unless the company is named "SBC," the most they can say is that they lease the wires. SBC still ultimately owns them.
If you can't get DSL service from your local Baby Bell, you can't get DSL from anybody. You're only able to get DSL service from a competing provider because your local Baby Bell decided to upgrade the local switches, which your provider in turn leased from them. The bill talked about in this article would have allowed SBC to not lease their DSL equipment.
Re:I'm sorry (Score:2)
I live in a town served by SBC, one of the afforementioned examples in your message. Just east of here in a small town is an independent telco that operates in part of the surrounding area. They would be quite amused indeed to learn that SBC owns their cable infrastructure and their Central Offices. They are, and several other companies like them around here, independent telephone companies. Yes, they trunk to SBC and the other carriers, but they are not simply local service providers.
They have existed for years and were never a part of the AT&T/Southwestern Bell monopoly. There are many such companies in Kansas, Nebraska, and Oklahoma that I have worked with first hand.
SBC is the dominant telco in Kansas, but they aren't the only one. Not by a long shot. Which means their attitude will relegate them to the same irrelevance that they have in the cellular business in Kansas.
Re:I'm sorry (Score:2)
Actually, the other guy was right. I'll explain:
ILEC = any incumbant local exchange; not exclusive to RBOCs.
RBOC = regional bell operating company; aka Baby Bell. Formed from divestiture; e.g. MFJ.
ILEC != RBOC/Bell. For instance, United Telephone, GTE, and thousands of little guys like Benkelman Telephone and Hooper Telephone of Nebraska are also ILECs, but not RBOCs.
Instead of being broken up into competing interests (like AT&T), instead they were broken up into regional monopolies
Somewhat, except the MFJ believed that the separation of long distance from local service would be the beginning of the separation. I still don't believe it anticipated the sluggishness of competition in the local loop.
This really was one of the most disappointing failures of the MFJ. It ignored the reality that the monopoly was based upon right of ways granted to the ILECs by local governments and property owners, creating a significant owned infrastructure that very few could compete with. Even today, there are communities in our parts that maintain an exclusive francise for cable and telephone. Competitors could not run wireline service even if they desired.
(called ILECs), each having a monopoly in a number of states but none of them allowed to operate outside their designated regions.
actually, this geographic limitation is a factor more on local service rather than other areas like directory services, Internet, long distance, etc, and it's also more focused on the RBOCs.
Nebraska did a study in 1992 on its own "opening up of the local exchange" (they eliminated rate controls over ILECs but didn't drop the other shoe permitting competition). Result? US West and LT&T (Lincoln Tel - now Alltel) stayed stable. Small incumbants like Huntel, on the other hand, went gangbusters raising rates (over 90% increase by Huntel in 5 years on resi and business service) while nearly halting infrastructure investment.
Where'd the money go? New competitive ventures, like computer shops, Internet businesses, etc.
the Act requires the ILECs to lease the use of their hardware to these competing interests (terms to be dictated by federal and state governments)
And unfortunately, the RBOCs like US West (now Qwest) discovered the loopholes, like if you fill up a central office switching facility with a bunch of cubical workers (freezing their butts off in the CO space, haha!), then you can claim you don't have enough space to permit CLECs to tie into your switch.
CLECs... do it by leasing Baby Bell hardware.
This is only partially true; they're leasing the unbundled element of a last-mile wire pair. The CLEC must supply its own DSLAM or comperable last-mile switching/termination, provide its own trunking back to its central switching, etc.
Having done this for years, I can attest that the only thing the RBOC will do is the wire pair, and even then, they'll get it wrong.
you have a problem with DSL service: The CLEC and the ILEC spend a few days blaming each other for the service problems before anything starts to get done.
Rarely is the CLEC at fault (and the ILEC knows this). Look at SWBell's game with its DSL provisioning "fax hotline" - consisting of a single fax machine for its territory that was always out of paper. Oops...
In their defense, they shouldn't have been left with the local loop. This was a community asset built and paid for by ratepayers of a monopoly. To hand this over to the ILEC only invited abuse.
If you can't get DSL service from your local Baby Bell, you can't get DSL from anybody.
Very inaccurate. Besides the fact that there are many ILECs who are not baby bells, there are CLECs that are ILECs from other territories providing service in each others area (such as Harlan Iowa, which has four broadband providers, including Farmers Telephone which provides DSL over its own copper - but isn't the ILEC), etc.
Hope that helps... telecom is an ugly world sometimes.
*scoove*
Re:I'm sorry (Score:2)
You are full of shit.
Yes, in some areas the Baby Bells are the ILECs and own the wires.
However, there are plenty of areas in which the Bells NEVER owned the wires - in those places the ILEC is not, and never has been, a Baby Bell, a part of AT&T, or anything resembling it.
You mis-interpreted information covering part of the country (a large part to be sure, but a part, not the whole) to cover the whole company.
Since you haven't done ALL your homework, I suggest you do so.
Since you seem to be incapable of simple Googling, I will help you out.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8
Now, remove your cranium from your rectum, read the links, and learn.
I'd be careful listing Sprint... (Score:2)
They won't deploy DSL, only their wireless service. Unfortunately, where he is he would need a 75 foot tower to have LOS to the transmitter.
Personally, I don't see a problem, but I'm a ham - the bigger the stick the better.
And as I said in my journal [slashdot.org], Southern Kansas really does understand customer service - and their eyes don't glaze over when you use the "L" word.
And a friend of mine gets quite good service from Haviland Telephone Co, but that's hardly surprising - when he filled out his forms to get internet service from them, under Employer/Job Title he truthfully put down "Your Boss (ret.)"
Serves 'em right! (Score:4, Insightful)
Pouting (Score:2)
They're either pouting or bluffing. SBC's competitors will start getting more broadband customers, and SBC can't ignore that for very long despite what they claim. SBC will be salivating and eventually they'll have to take a bite no matter what they say about keeping their hands off.
Kansas Broadband (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: One more thing (Score:2)
Been to the factory dropping off and picking up units and have been by there too many times to count on K-42 taking a shortcut to Enid, OK. Good to see they're still hanging in there.
In support of SBC (Score:4, Interesting)
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).
Re:In support of SBC (Score:4, Insightful)
It may come as quite a shock, but these non-SBC entities generally have a more modern infrastructure and employ new technologies sooner than SBC has in the past (this excludes the Sprint owned telcos in Kansas). The reality is that SBC is a large corporation with a large marketing dept.
Many years ago my uncle who lives about two miles from my folks but are on one of the independent telcos had a private line and touch tone as standard service over a decade before it was standard service to SBC customers. SBC, doesn't lead, they haven't lead, and they won't lead. They won't offer leading edge service unless forced kicking and screaming (witness SBC-Kansas president Tomlin's childish reaction).
I understand your emotional connection to the topic at hand, but SBC is hardly a shining example of a leading telecommunications company.
Re:In support of SBC (Score:2)
Re:In support of SBC (Score:2)
And when they fuck it up, who has to fix it? SBC, of course.
Ask your Mom... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Ask your Mom... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Ask your Mom... (Score:2)
You answered it your self.
On another front... (Score:2)
Wireless channels (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Kansas has made a mistake (Score:2)
Re:Kansas has made a mistake (Score:2)
In a past era such investments in infrastructure were made under much stricter regulation than exists currently. Regulation assures that the company involved can employ people and make a reasonable profit while also assuring that the consumer isn't gouged too hard by a natural monopoly. The fly in the ointment here is that the current SBC executives believe that they can pull off what Enron and Worldcom were unable to do.
I doubt highly that we Kansans will be hurt gravely by this bill's dismissal. SBC has failed to take any initiative into an area that others are already finding good business. SBC wants it the monopoly way or no way. No way for SBC suits me just fine.
Well here in... (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Well here in... (Score:2)
Completely deregulating won't make things more competitive. If they aren't willing to allow competitors access to their lines now unless the law mandates it, and even then, they find the loopholes, what makes you think they will willingly provide "competitive" access to their lines when there is no accountability and oversight?
Thanks,
Me
Re:Well here in... (Score:2)
The minicomputer makers of the 1970 fell to the micros of the 1980s because they didn't want to belive that the cheaper micros would replace their high margin hardware. The minicomputer makers of the 1980s went the way of the dinosaur in the 1990s, or radically changed, due to me rise of the personal PC. In each case, established companies, with lots of name recognition and deep pockets, who could easily have made the transition (had they really wanted to) put their heads in the ground like ostriches and got their lunch eaten.
Another example. DSL was held up for years because phone companies were pushing ISDN, which billed PER MINUTE during the day (peak hours.) Although penetration of DSL would have landed them a massive market, the established phone monopolies were more than content to milk business customers for the privilege of running a digital connection between them and a ISDN-capable ISP.
Basically, the lesson is that new enterprises may not be as profitable in the short run as milking the shit out of a business you already control. And if you can do more to lock out future competition (tie up suppliers, dry up credit, use vaporware announcement to shatter their market, use FUD, lobby for laws that will raise barrier to entry, etc.) and it was cheaper to do than actually compete, wouldn't you expect these profit oriented companies to do just that?
If there is an incentive to profit by screwing the customer, expect large corporations with little accountability to do exactly that.
Just a little bit south... (Score:4, Informative)
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.
What said one baby Bell to another? (Score:2)
The myth of "under-cost" by the ILECs... (Score:5, Informative)
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
Re:The myth of "under-cost" by the ILECs... (Score:2)
Fact of the mattter is regulation is causing the elemination of affordable broadband entirely.
Just read the comments from the people of missouri and how happy they thanks to deregulation.
My brother in Missouri has wanted dsl and now can have it at an affordable $60 a month from sbc.
The Alternatives will prevail (Score:2, Informative)
There are many alternatives however. Cox Communications has a strong broadband offering in many parts of the state, at least in many towns that SBC serves. There is also wireless broadband popping up in many locations.
They don't realize it, but they are just hurting themselves by not selling broadband here, as by the time they do, it will be too late.
No big suprise. (Score:3, Interesting)
SBC candidate lying (Score:2, Interesting)
SBC wants control to lock competitors out which does not work wen competing against fixed wireless providers..
SBC we do not need your monopolistic ways!
ILECs Make Lousy ISPs (Score:2, Interesting)
They all have lousy customer service.
The ILECs don't want to offer affordable DSL that will take business away from their expen$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.
Re:ILECs Make Lousy ISPs (Score:2)
Gotta agree with SBC. Built your own network! (Score:3, Interesting)
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!
SBC will NEVER let you build your own Network (Score:2)
SBC and friends will NEVER agree to this. These guys will fight tooth and nail to make sure you do not build an incombant network.
This is worse to them than having them resell phone lines.
I honestly think the Baby Bells should suffer, and severely. These companies need to be severely devalued.
Let the current system take effect for a couple of years, and lets give thier business to the cable companies and wireless providers, and then maybe they'll be a little more willing to talk about your idea.
Make the infrastructure public (Score:2)
turnabout is fair play (Score:2)
SBC has stated that they will now put their broadband deployment plans in Kansas on hold.
Go Kansas! Step 2: pass a law outlawing any AUP restrictions on the use of any Internet connectivity, particularly wireless. If they still want to play hardball, a meeting of the PSC would be in order. $.02 phone bills for all!
This is bad news we need de-regulation (Score:2)
I hate communism socialism regulation. Regulation is wasting tax money, and when the government wants more to waste, they raise taxes.
What I'd love to see the FCC do... (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Deregulation.. (Score:2)
What needs to happen is any regulation barring Co-Ops be ripped out out of the state laws, allowing for local communities that are sick and tired of being dragged around by some jerk monopoly (yes you heard me right) that resides in a 40 story glass and steel building that was built by their blood money.
Talk with your state reps and congresscritters and urge them to rescend the laws barring co-ops, like the ones that they have here in Texas.
Lets give them a BIG taste of their own medicine folks... SuckWesternBell ain't the only game in town that can provide the service, just make dammed sure that they dont stifle competition, or the ability to kick their collective butt out of your city limits when you want to go Co-Op or a completely different service.
Say we are not a monopoly - OR ELSE (Score:2)
Translation:
"We're not a monopoly, nor will this make us more of one. Now, if you don't do exactly what we want, we'll use the monopoly that we don't have to punish you."
Looks like Kansas were right then - they just should have stopped the Baby Bells years ago, before they got this bad. A lesson that's probably worth learning by all of the other states that are bending over and lubing up.
Speaking as a Kansas resident... (Score:2)
I've heard horror stories about SBC's DSL, though; we're lucky enough to be on a better local provider, but I think we just got bumped back to SBC for some of our connectivity since our dry-copper-pair provider went belly-up last week.
Re:You go through life... (Score:2)
bad assumption (Score:2)
Re:I'm not sure I see a problem here (Score:2)
Think about a developer that builds a new subdivition. The streets become the propery of the city after the construction is finished even though they developer paid for them to go in.