Telecom deregulation

[iamthebandfanman]

ive been seeing/hearing more and more 'conservative' groups in the state pushing for new telecom rules in our state ..

anybody have any idea how this would effect phone/internet services in the state?

they claim now that there are plenty of telecom companies, regulation is no longer needed... that competition will keep prices low as well as open up more choices to pick from to the customer..

I have very little knowledge about telecom laws/regulations...

anybody know anything about the subject and could give a telecom novice like myself some insight ?

[TexasProgresive]

1. Telecom deregulation is a mixed bag

Innovation was stifled under the regulated monopoly that was the Bell system. All equipment had to be to Bell system Blue Book and evidently they were loath to add new products. That was bad. What was good with regulation is that the phone companies were required by law to grant service to anyone requesting it. Also there were financial subsidies that made universal service possible.

When wireline was king long distance was the most profitable, so LD subsidized Local service, business service subsidized residential and all of them subsidized rural. Rural service can never pay for itself. If the industry is totally deregulated the rural citizens will have to do without. This included cell service for many because cell service is spotty in less populated areas especially off main roads. Cell providers tend to transmit up and down primary roads.

In many rural parts of Texas there is no broad band internet service other than expensive satellite. This is very expensive and people who cry about net neutrality should be happy they don't have the data limits of this service. 50 bucks for 10 GB a month and then upward from there. No Netflix allowed.

The to tightly controlled regulation of the Bell system was bad and needed to be revamped but the stripping of regulation from any industry has never seemed to do the consumers any favors.

[iamthebandfanman]

4. the reason i was asking..

I was watching a couple of people being agitated on FB by the lack of internet provider selection in their area.. a libertarian in their friends list instantly blamed the regulation laws over the telecom industry...
frankly, I know nothing about it..
was just curious.

so, sounds like to me that in a rural state ( like KY) it may still be pretty necessary even if there are some bad trade offs?

[TexasProgresive]

5. Actually since internet service is unregualted the liebertarian is as usual lying.

At least this is so in Texas. Cable companies and Telcoms offer little internet service in rural areas. Let's get in the way back machine to FDR's New Deal.

Rural Electrification Administration (REA), one of the New Deal agencies created under President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. The REA was created on May 11, 1935, with the primary goal of promoting rural electrification.[1] In the 1930s, the U.S. lagged significantly behind Europe in providing electricity to rural areas due to the unwillingness of power companies to serve farmsteads.

Private electric utilities argued that the government had no right to compete with or regulate private enterprise, despite many of these utilities' having refused to extend their lines to rural areas, claiming lack of profitability. Private power companies set rural rates four times as high as city rates

REA brought light and power to millions of rural people. The phrase in bold because that is the exact situation in the US today. Many countries outstrip the US in providing universal broadband to their people. So what does this have to do with telecommunications?

In 1949, the REA became authorized to provide loans to rural telephone cooperatives.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rural_Electrification_Administration

Until REA was extended to providing telephone service there was very little telephone service to rural people. Something like REA needs to be done to give High Speed/High Data service to all people in the US. But given the current idiots in charge that is as likely as having single payer health care in my lifetime.

The point is, this free market talk is a scam. Left to their own devices private companies will not go the extra mile for anyone. It is only with sensible regulation and government incentive that they will do the right thing.

[A Little Weird]

2. I don't know a lot about it

I think the main concern is the effect this will have on the rural residents in SE Kentucky. They are already at a disadvantage - poor broadband access, spotty cell service - and now this bill could make it tougher to even get landline service. I'm sure there are some positives - proponents claim that more competition will lead to lower prices and more options. But these benefits will most likely help the folks in the bigger towns and cities and will not materialize for rural residents.

Here's a letter from Tom FitzGerald responding to the bill. He states more coherently than I'm able to many of the concerns people have with the bill.
http://www.kyrc.org/webnewspro/138998785057540.shtml

[iamthebandfanman]

3. thanks guys! n/t

[A Little Weird]

6. Update

Looks like it has passed the senate.

http://www.lex18.com/news/telecommunications-bill-clears-kentucky-senate/


http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20140130/NEWS0101/301300078/-1/rsslink?nclick_check=1