Vote Gives States New Regulatory Power Over Phone Lines
By Daniel Remin
WASHINGTON — New Hampshire’s two Republican congressmen said that Thursday’s Federal Communications Commission vote to allow states to decide if local phone companies should let competitors use their lines is not the best option.
The vote will change the system under which federal regulators had required local phone competition and turn the decision-making over to the states.
“Although the FCC’s action relieves some of the old price-regulation regime, it failed to accomplish the larger goal of creating a stable and technology-neutral framework that would support real competition and business planning,” Rep. Charlie Bass said in a statement.
Rep. Jeb Bradley said he is concerned about the FCC ruling and wants a better investment strategy.
“We need in this country investment policies that are such that the telecommunications companies, be they regulated Baby Bell, long distance carriers, wireless carriers, cable providers, that favor investment in the next generation of telecommunications infrastructure deployment [are able to achieve that goal], and I’m not sure that devolving patchwork regulation to the states is what gets us there at this point in time,” Bradley said in an interview.
The FCC’s 3-2 vote involved a section of the 1996 Telecommunications Act that governs local competition. Chairman Michael Powell and commissioner Kathleen Abernathy dissented.
“To explain their decision, the majority has cloaked itself in the drape of ‘states’ rights,’ a classic conservative mantra,” Powell said. “This is a trivial misuse of a cherished constitutional precept.”
“The nation will now embark on 51 major state proceedings,” Powell said. “These 51 cases will likely be decided in multiple ways. (There is) little chance of regulatory and legal harmony.”
One of Powell’s other concerns was that more people could lose their jobs.
“I fear we will see more job loss as carriers cut their capital expenditures and refuse to move forward with new investment and growth against this Picasso-esque regulatory backdrop.”
Powell said that state regulation could create more problems for the telecommunications industry.
“It is a model that only works if hundreds of stars align perfectly and stay that way,” he said. “The regulatory arbitrage bubble expands ever more perilously with each regulatory variable and is sure to eventually pop, like dot coms of old, if government policy does not diligently steer the balloon to stable ground.”
In New Hampshire, Bradley said that it is important for the state to set diligent policies quickly and to work with other states so that similar guidelines are passed.
“The PUC (Public Utilities Commission) here will set clear guidelines and do so quickly so that all players know what the rules are going to be,” Bradley said. “I think it’s very important that the commission work with other New England and northeast regional states so that you don’t have one state doing something here and one state doing something else. The commission has to make sure that the investment climate is right that encourages upgrades.”
(Daniel Remin is an intern with the Boston University Washington News Service.)
Published in The Manchester Union Leader, in New Hampshire.
