Clicking on banner ads enables JWR to constantly improve
Jewish World Review April 12, 2001 / 18 Nissan, 5761

James K. Glassman

Jim Glassman
JWR's Pundits
World Editorial
Cartoon Showcase

Mallard Fillmore

Michael Barone
Mona Charen
Linda Chavez
Greg Crosby
Larry Elder
Don Feder
Suzanne Fields
James Glassman
Paul Greenberg
Bob Greene
Betsy Hart
Nat Hentoff
David Horowitz
Marianne Jennings
Michael Kelly
Mort Kondracke
Ch. Krauthammer
Lawrence Kudlow
Dr. Laura
John Leo
David Limbaugh
Michelle Malkin
Jackie Mason
Chris Matthews
Michael Medved
Kathleen Parker
Wes Pruden
Sam Schulman
Amity Shlaes
Roger Simon
Tony Snow
Thomas Sowell
Cal Thomas
Jonathan S. Tobin
Ben Wattenberg
George Will
Bruce Williams
Walter Williams
Mort Zuckerman

Consumer Reports

To revive The New Economy, release a chokehold – break up the Bells --
WHEN is being half right all wrong? When you correctly diagnose the condition but then provide a remedy that could kill the patient.

Rep. Billy Tauzin, R La., is making exactly that fatal mistake regarding the nation’s telecommunications.

In a presentation to the Progress & Freedom Foundation, the powerful Commerce Committee chairman last week stated clearly and correctly that the primary threat to future economic growth is a continued meltdown in the information technology sector. Since March 2000, stock prices for telecommunications companies have dropped 70 percent, many have gone bankrupt and others are quickly running out of cash. A domino effect has knocked down the profits of the suppliers that serve them.

Tauzin also was also exactly right when he said that a strong rebound in telecommunications requires two things: first, reliable energy supplies and, second, widespread availability of broadband to speed delivery of services from the current-copper crawl pace.

But Tauzin’s remedy is all wrong. He thinks the best way to boost broadband is by releasing the regional Bell monopolies from their obligations under the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Such a move would kill competition and innovation, the keys to a rebound in both broadband and the economy as a whole.

What were the obligations? Five years ago, the Bells agreed to open their local loops to competitors. In exchange, the Bells would be able to get into the long-distance market.

Unfortunately, little has changed since 1996. The Bells dragged their feet, and they continue to have a chokehold on the “last mile” of phone line into the home. Some 95 percent of U.S. residences still have a regulated Bell monopoly as their local service provider. And, like all monopolies, the Bells have been raising their local rates and doing little to improve service.

That dismal picture isn’t a result of a lack of effort by other carriers. Cable companies and competitive local exchange carriers – CLECs – that compete directly with the Bells have poured more than $100 billion into creating a reliable high-speed nationwide communications network -- only to see their efforts stymied by the Bells foot dragging and legal maneuvers. The last mile remains critical to just about every telecom provider, and in all but four states, the Bells dominate it.

Hope for real competition is rapidly running out. Two months ago, one of the largest CLECs, Covad Communications cut back the planned expansion of its national DSL broadband network. Two weeks ago, another large CLEC, NorthPoint Communications, which is in bankruptcy, ended service to 100,000 customers, Last week, Rhythm NetConnections ran out of money. And soon, PSInet, which laid a million miles of fiber optic through 28 countries and 90 metropolitan areas of the United States, could follow suit. As PSInet founder William Schrader says, the “dinosaurs” (as he calls the Bell monopolies) are winning because “deregulation has stopped, and they will become monopolists again because the competition can’t compete with monopolists.”

Indeed, the monopolists are only getting bigger. Thanks to mergers among themselves, the seven Bells plus non-Bell local giant GTE have become just four companies – SBC, Verizon, Bell South and Qwest. And in addition to merging to reduce competition, they have reneged on the promises they made (to win merger approvals) to get into each other’s territories. Verizon, formed when BellAtlantic merged with Nynex and GTE, announced last month it would slow down an already sluggish expansion into other Bells’ regions. And SBC says it won’t come close to its target – set for the Federal Communications Commission when it merged with Ameritech, the Midwest monopoly – to enter 30 major-city markets.

Yet, as far as Tauzin is concerned, it is the Bells that are the victims – facing unfair competition, denied a level playing field and abused by regulators. So, to make things equal, he would let the Bells get into the most lucrative part of the long distance-market – data transmission – without having to open up their local loops. He would also release them from their promises to compete with each other.

“Why,” he asks, “should we have different regulation for broadband delivery on a satellite, as opposed to a cable, as opposed to a telephone DSL line, as opposed to a wireless delivery terrestrial system, if it’s all the same product that is delivered to the consumer.” Why? It’s not hard to understand. Local phone companies and their competitors are treated differently because they are different. For one thing, cable companies built their own networks in a competitive market -- while the local phone companies have had long distance companies, Internet Service Providers and CLECs kicking in with access charges, mandated by government, to help maintain the local network. For another, the Bells for the past century have been a monopoly and nurtured by government. Finally, the Telecom Act, passed overwhelmingly in Congress, specified a clear glide slope to deregulation, with different rules for different players – but with the outcome the same for all: deregulation.

Nothing makes clearer the control exercised by the Bells than a remarkable admission by SBC’s chairman Ed Whitacre. On March 14, he wrote Tauzin that “a million consumers” in Illinois “cannot now, and may never, have access to DSL service” if his company isn’t relieved of state regulations requiring it to unbundled its services and offer them to competitors at a wholesale rate.

Does SBC own the DSL market the way it owns local service? Whitacre thinks so.

As Illinois Commerce Commissioner Terry S. Harvill noted in a letter to the House Speaker Dennis Hastert two weeks later: “Mr. Whitacre’s statement is clear: Ameritech Illinois controls the market so completely that it can determine if more than a million consumers in Illinois will have access to broadband services. If the market were competitive, SBC/Ameritech would not be able to unilaterally halt the deployment of DSL infrastructure and deny these customers advanced telephone service.”

And that, as Harvill said, is truly chilling. In fact, the Bells have now gobbled up 75 percent of the DSL market nationwide, and they are acting just like monopolists always act – they are reducing service and raising prices.

What will happen if the powerful local Bells get what they want from Tauzin and Congress? History shows it won’t be the expansion of affordable broadband.

In the past, the Bells tried to kill the Internet in its crib by putting per-minute charges on local calls made to the Internet Service Providers (ISPs) that connected consumers to the Internet. Just such policies in Europe and Japan have curbed the Internet’s growth there, to those nations’ economic detriment. In the U.S., brave CLECs stepped up to the plate and gave those ISPs good low-cost service.

The Bells also kept DSL service under wraps for more than a decade, not wanting to divert business from their high-speed, high-cost T1 lines. Only when the upstart CLECs began delivering it to customers at affordable prices did the Bells start to do the same. And now that competition from the upstarts is waning (as the Bells drag their feet on local connections, file lawsuits and renege on agreements to pay their “reciprocal compensation” bills), the Bells are making DSL service less affordable once again. A competitive market would not allow SBC to hike prices for its DSL service 25 percent, as it did last month.

What to do? Certainly, the answer is not to follow the choice that Tauzin recommends. That would insure no competition at the local level – and the vaunted deregulation of telecommunications would be even farther off. No, to achieve deregulation, the answer is to break the Bells up – not geographically, but functionally, as some states, like Pennsylvania are already trying to do.

Each local phone company should be divided into two businesses: wholesale and retail. The wholesale side would sell local service both to its own retail side and to any other company that wanted to purchase that service. That’s how to achieve real competition, to boost quality and push down prices.

Giving in to the Bells’ demands for a rollback of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 is a prescription for disaster that will throttle the prospects of the New Economy for decades to come.

JWR contributor James K. Glassman is the host of Tech Central Station. Comment by clicking here.


04/04/01: Even as stocks have fallen, the Net keeps booming
03/28/01: Where’s The Profit In Biotech Future?
03/22/01: The Joy of Debt: The last thing we should want is a U.S. Treasury flush with cash
03/19/01: 'Defensive' Stocks in the NASDAQ
03/15/01: Bush administration must say no to Jane and Kyoto
03/08/01: Time to buy small caps? Consider these five great techs
03/01/01: Bill’s and Larry’s continued political adventures
02/26/01: Chips on the Dips?
02/23/01: How Tauzin Can Keep His Word And Stop Telecom "Remonopolization"
02/13/01: Consumers, WAKE UP! Middlemen are ripping you off
02/02/01: Publicity-Seeking Politicians and Contingency-Fee Lawyers Corrupt the Law
01/26/01: DoubleClick, eBay And Their Promising Ilk
01/24/01: Will Cyberspace Look Like France or America?
12/27/00: Cut interest, taxes and regulation to save high-tech economy
12/20/00: Close, But No Big Czar
12/15/00: A Down Year? Maybe. But Let’s Put It in Perspective
12/13/00: Clinton’s sorry midnight race into history
12/07/00: Is Telecom’s Future The Bells, The Bells, and Only The Bells?
12/01/00: Money talks and walks in election aftermath
11/29/00: Climate Treaty Deadlock Shows Lack of Consensus and Common Sense
11/23/00: Climate change participants don’t listen to reasons for uncertainty
11/21/00: Will Regulators Create a Recession?
11/14/00: The Election and the Market
10/26/00: Hang on for the long term
10/25/00: On privacy, one size doesn’t fit all
10/24/00: Perish the bearish thought
10/19/00: Beating hunger --- the biggest prize
10/13/00: Way to play biotech
10/12/00: Bush vs. Gore on Technology
10/11/00: Global Climate Scare: Fools Rush In
10/05/00: Avoid the Apple Trap
10/03/00: Goodbye, anti-Microsoft crusader --- and good riddance
09/29/00: Should You Invest in Tech IPOs?
09/27/00: Could technology end airline delays?
09/22/00: Don’t Forget Small Caps
09/20/00: Is the New York Times Rooting for Disaster?
09/13/00: The Best Argument Against Net Regulation
08/30/00: Political Risk in Big Drug Stocks
07/27/00: Tech Dividends
07/25/00: Government Privacy Violators
07/20/00: If I Had to Pick One Tech Stock
07/18/00: Our Favorite Lawsuit
07/13/00: Silicon Valley East
07/11/00: Election 2000: Year of the Investor Class?
07/07/00: Adventures on the
07/06/00:The Difference Between Bill Gates and Larry Ellison
06/29/00: In the Chips
06/27/00: Free market wins in Federal Court!
06/22/00: Wireless Bargains?
06/20/00: Is Your SUV Warming the Planet?
06/15/00: Shopping for Government
06/13/00: Top 10 Tech Stocks
06/08/00: Riding the eBook Wave
06/06/00: "The Last Mile"
06/02/00: Keep Buying!
05/31/00: Who Asked the FTC to Regulate Online Privacy?
05/25/00: "When It’s Time to Sell"
05/23/00: End the "Telephone Tax"
05/16/00: Time Warner Gets a Bad Rap

© 2000, Tech Central Station