FCC, Let It Be (James K. Glassman on Bell monopolies vs. competition)

Tech Central Station ^ | January 14, 2002 | James K. Glassman

[Support Free Republic]

DO YOU REMEMBER TOMMY ON ELECTION NIGHT

LET'S DO IT AGAIN IN 04

Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794
or you can use
PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com

Become A Monthly Donor
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD

[Yak]

Another slanted piece on telecom from the Tech folks . . . How can anyone say that UNE-P is "real competition"? It's still bell service re-labelled w/ another company's name.

It's like the Feds ordering MacDonalds to sell it's hamburgers to Burger King at below cost, allowing BK to put their wrapper on it, and re-sell it at below what MickyDee's is selling theirs for.

That's not real competition. UNE-P is just preventing REAL investment and REAL competiton.

[discostu]

Unfortunately the Bell breakup also made it no longer profitable to keep all of America on the best cable available, so now we're on stuff 2 and 3 generations old in not-big-city America. Plus it gives us all the awful commercials, has there ever been a long distance commercial that doesn't make you want to shove pencils through your eardrums?! Alf! For the love of God they resurrected Alf for the long distance wars! When will the madness stop?!

[habs4ever]

Glassman has never understood this issue and he never will.He ought to give up on this subject and fold, and his track record has been dismal.

[HAL9000]

It's like the Feds ordering MacDonalds to sell it's hamburgers to Burger King at below cost, allowing BK to put their wrapper on it, and re-sell it at below what MickyDee's is selling theirs for.

No, it's not. You have the misconception that the monopoly telephone utility is just another private enterprise.

If the Bells are willing to give up their public franchise, their common carrier status, their quasi-governmental powers of eminent domain and their guaranteed rate of return that distinguish them from any other business - then they can be totally deregulated.

Until those things happen - the monopoly phone companies will not be like McDonalds, and the law should not treat them as such.

[Yak]

But I hope you'll agree that the Bells have substantial REAL competition right now, both direct & indrect. They're getting killed in the business market. Wireless and internet are significant forms of competition as well.

Best to lift the shackles and let them go.

[HAL9000]

But I hope you'll agree that the Bells have substantial REAL competition right now, both direct & indrect.

In a few areas, yes - they do have real wireline competition. But it is rare.

It's better to let the states decide whether their local Bell monopolies have viable competition within their jurisdictions, rather than the Federal Communications Commission.

[Bogey78O]

'and their guaranteed rate of return that distinguish them from any other business'

The regulation of Bell has totally eliminated any guarantee of a return on investment. That's why there is no expansion anymore.

[Bogey78O]

Satellite and Cable do not have to resell their lines at or below cost. They're the ones with no real transmission competition. Hells bells, we're letting cable companies sell telephone service in many places. Not to mention the feds put a lead weight only on DSL and gave Cable modems free unfettered (and mostly untaxed) service.

This whole argument for regulation of the Bells come from other Big Businesses who want to slice profit off of Bell. Keep it up and in 15 years when the nations telephone network collapses you'll see all these demands fold up as these companies look for another way to leech money using the gov't.

[Bogey78O]

'In some states, UNE-P gains have been especially impressive. Using data from June, PACE found that there were 751,000 UNE-P lines in Michigan, a 14 percent market share of all lines; 428,000 lines in Florida, a 6 percent share; 327,000 in Georgia, for 8 percent; 126,000 in Kansas, 9 percent; and 424,000 in Illinois, 6 percent'

Well when the gov't mandates that Bell sells service for these lines at up to 70% off of what they charge people tend to take the bait. Now if only I could get the gov't to mandate people sell me 20$ bills for only 10$ I'll be set.

[Bogey78O]

Almost missed this.

'As a result, consumers are being deprived of lower prices and better service. '

I'd swear this was Carville who wrote this. It's like how the Dems slip in that Bush's tax cuts only help the richest 1% and no one calls them on it because it's stated as fact.

True the customer gets a lower price. That's because the Feds mandate it for UNE-Ps. But they get the same dang service. There's no difference. Well except now Bell has less money to spend on the infrastructure which guarantees more problems down the road.

And the only thing you propose is they split up the BEll companies into resale and wholesale. Well you'll end up with higher rates once you've removed inner company subsidation and all dial tone sellers have to pay the same because you know the company couldn't survive if every Bell customer paid the same price as a UNE customer is currently paying.

So you'll end up with higher bills on residential service. And since you equate service with price paid why are you suggesting we screw the customer?

[HAL9000]

Well except now Bell has less money to spend on the infrastructure which guarantees more problems down the road.

Companies like SBC use the money they receive from ratepayers for dubious investments in Mexico, Canada, Africa, the Middle East and other foreign countries. That money could have been used for major upgrades to their U.S. infrastructure.

[HAL9000]

Well when the gov't mandates that Bell sells service for these lines at up to 70% off of what they charge people tend to take the bait.

So the Bell monopolies are complaining that they can't charge retail rates for wholesale service? Waaaahhh!

[Bogey78O]

So is this where I bash the wealthiest 1% for wanting a tax cut?

[HAL9000]

So is thi��������s where I bash the wealthiest 1% for wanting a tax cut?

No, the place to do that is DemocratsUnderground.com.

But we all know you belong here, not there - even if you're wrong on this one particular issue. It's perfectly understandable to have a blind spot about your employer - the Bell monopoly.

[Bogey78O]

Hehe...what can I say. I'm an Ann Rand fan. I believe the investor class and the businessmen should have more sayso in their company than a federal official.

[lds23]

Just wondering how much the Bells and all the other telecoms are spending on lobbying the gummint and stalling each other.

Money that could be better spent on customer service or returned as dividends.

But I guess lobbying is such an ingrained way of life in all industries it's kind of silly of me to suggest alternatives.

[HAL9000]

I know times are tough for the employees at SBC, with Polyester Ed's failure to move the company into a competitive position and laying off thousands of good people. But SBC would be crazy to let you go because you are an articulate advocate for the company. Good luck.

Unfortunately, there is too much at stake to allow the Bells to regain a stranglehold on the telecommunications industry. If Powell and the RBOCs get their way, it would increase the power of the Bell monopoly, but cause deep harm to the overall economy.

Competition is the best remedy, and it will be very profitable for the Bells too. They will earn a windfall as a wholesale last-mile provider.

[Bogey78O]

Nah, I work for the competent Bell company. The one that's actually doing DSL well.

Competition is fine. But the laws regarding UNE-Ps make it so that for every UNE order we get we end up losing money on it so that we need more customers to offset it. There's nothign wrong with the idea of reselling service. But the Feds need to come up with a bettter way where Bell isn't selling to another company at a rate that we have no chance of matching.

If price is a concern the feds could go full out and make us all charge the same and a rate could be negotiated between the ILECs and the CLECs. But then again, as I've felt all along, this isn't about getting the customer a decent rate as well as better service. It's about getting the feds to make the RBOCs slice some of it's profits over to other companies by making them sell service to them at such a rate they can't match it's resale price.