'Fiction' of telecom rules

United Press International, a sister news organization of the Washington Times ^ | Sept. 17, 2004, 12:02 p.m. | Gene Koprowski

[solicitor77]

Futurist Marshall McLuhan once famously wrote that the "medium is the message." The phrase has become a credo for the telecommunications industry during the last 30 or so years. Trouble is, there are so many media today, the message is getting garbled.Technology entrepreneurs are creating a continual array of new technologies, from wireless-fidelity networks to high-speed Internet, for mobile consumers and business people, none of which were envisioned only a decade ago. The problem is, the federal government's rules for telecom technology -- first written in the 1930s and revised about 10 years ago -- have not kept pace with these dramatic technological changes. "Many people are concerned that our country's communications laws are set up in a rigid pattern of the past," said Rick Whitt, senior director of global policy and planning at MCI, during a forum last week sponsored by the Progressive Policy Institute, an arm of the Democratic Leadership Council, in Washington, D.C.The forum was open to reporters nationwide via teleconference.Next year may be an apropos time for Congress to rewrite telecommunications laws, and help clarify the rules for industry and consumers, who are growing accustomed to receiving entertainment delivered by mobile phone providers and Internet access via cable TV outlets.A debate is beginning on the rules for the future of technology and telecommunications, and it likely will consume policymakers on Capitol Hill and in the White House in the coming years, and impact the lives of consumers for decades to come.

--Gene Koprowski covers telecommunications for UPI Science News. E-mail sciencemail@upi.

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20040916-011654-5965r

[solicitor77]

At least some in the Democrat Party aren't complete wackos. This report shows that the Democratic Leadership Council advocates condidering further deregulation of telecom.

[misterrob]

deregulation meaning that Verizon should have to resell it's property at below market costs to competititors? We have competition in the telecom industry and it's called wireless. The long distance market has been crushed and the RBOC's are losing their second line business to both wireless and cable companies. Plus, why should the Bell company shareholders get boned on this deal? Advances in technology mean that these telcos can operate their networks cheaper which means that they have money to pay down debt and return dividends to the shareholders. Plus, their rates are set by the public utility commissioners which hinders them anyway.

The "deregulation" years ago helped create one hell of a boom and bust cycle. We don't need another.