Telephone Companies

The Pacific Bell and General Telephone companies are now telling their customers that they must pay a monthly fee to cover expenses in the event they need repairs of their inside telephone wires. If they don't subscribe, they will have to pay about $65 for such a repair. Many people will go along with this monthly charge because they do not want to be stuck with a large repair bill if something does go wrong in the future. Neither I, nor anyone I have spoken with, has ever heard of anyone requiring repairs to their inside telephone lines during a lifetime of using telephone service.

This post was updated, as indicated below. The digital video recorders that have proliferated in U.S. homes over the past decade may be a boon to TV viewers, giving them the ability to time-shift programs, record multiple shows at the same time and pause live broadcasts. But they're also gluttons for electricity, consuming almost as much power after they've been turned off as when they're on. They're about to go on a power diet. The Consumer Electronics Assn. and the National Cable & Telecommunications Assn.

TELECOMMUNICATIONS: A turning point looms. Deregulation allows companies to push into new markets. Telephone companies, cable providers and cellular companies will elbow into each others' territories. Federal action could unleash a hot new market for personal communications systems.

By Nathan Olivarez-Giles, Los Angeles Times The Federal Communications Commission has come up with a new way to apply some network neutrality rules that would force Comcast Corp., AT&T Inc. and other broadband Internet service providers to handle all Web traffic the same, without imposing limits on users or blocking websites. The proposal is aimed at blunting an April federal appeals court ruling involving Comcast that found that the agency had limited authority to regulate broadband Internet service.

As the commissioner assigned to telecommunications matters now before the Public Utilities Commission, and its representative at the recent legislative hearing, I am compelled to respond to Assemblywoman Gwen Moore's column on recent developments in telecommunications regulation in California ("PUC's Phone Scheme Is a Wrong Number," Op-Ed Page, Nov. 14). New technology and growing competition in telecommunications have led to numerous regulatory changes in the past 10 years. As monopolies have been eroded in various segments of the industry, federal and state regulators have relaxed regulation and offered the telecommunications industry greater flexibility.

It amazes me that people complain about irresponsible Democrats who want to raise their taxes, totally ignoring the tremendous burden of the Iraq war, the unaccounted billions given to selected subcontractors to carry out this war, etc., and the deregulation philosophy of the Republican Party. In the Sept. 19 story ("PUC says phone rates can rise 30%"), the California Public Utilities Commission says that telephone companies will be allowed to raise rates 30% in 2009, and an additional 23% in 2010, with the final goal of totally deregulating the companies.

American Telephone & Telegraph Co. said Monday that it earned $1.38 billion in 1984, its first year of operation after divesting its 22 Bell System telephone companies. The profit trailed both AT&T's initial forecast and current estimates of some Wall Street analysts, and AT&T Chairman Charles L. Brown said: "We expected to do better." "We intend to do better in 1985 and better still in the years ahead," Brown said in a statement.

Even though the telephone company breakup occured a few years ago we are still feeling the effects. Not too long ago the phone company began charging us for directory assistance calls (current Pacific Bell charges are five free calls per month on a residence phone and 25 cents a call thereafter). Those of us who are library users knew that we could still call or go to many of our local public libraries and get this information for free, using their extensive collections of telephone books from many parts of the country.

Two long-distance telephone companies have been ordered to stop adding customers in California during investigations of possible "slamming," or signing up customers without permission, the state Public Utilities Commission said. L.D. Services Inc. of Santa Fe Springs is accused of slamming more than 20,000 customers, most of them Spanish-speaking. The company could not be reached for comment. PUC investigators have been examining L.D.

Admittedly, telephone regulation issues can be complicated and beg for simplification. But not the kind of simplification columnist Michael Hiltzik provided ("SBC, It's All in the Way You Look at It," June 23). For example, California's 1989 New Regulatory Framework for telephone companies was the first of its kind, starting a form of oversight that has been copied by most states. It directly limits phone company prices while requiring quality service, all in ways that insulate customers from the financial effects of competition.

Jazz musician Bill Cunliffe loves television -- but he doesn't watch it on a TV set. "I can watch anything I want, any time I want," he said, "on my bottom-of-the-line Mac PowerBook." Cunliffe, 53, is one of a growing number of TV viewers who get all their programs via the Internet. For reasons that include saving money, convenience, personal choice and a hatred of commercials, these viewers are cutting the cord from cable, satellite and telephone suppliers of TV service, and even throwing away the rabbit ears and other antennas that brought in over-the-air broadcasts.

It amazes me that people complain about irresponsible Democrats who want to raise their taxes, totally ignoring the tremendous burden of the Iraq war, the unaccounted billions given to selected subcontractors to carry out this war, etc., and the deregulation philosophy of the Republican Party. In the Sept. 19 story ("PUC says phone rates can rise 30%"), the California Public Utilities Commission says that telephone companies will be allowed to raise rates 30% in 2009, and an additional 23% in 2010, with the final goal of totally deregulating the companies.

Federal regulators Wednesday handed a victory to the nation's two biggest phone companies by barring local governments from imposing unreasonable conditions on new pay- television providers. The 3-2 vote by the Federal Communications Commission makes it easier for AT&T Inc. and Verizon Communications Inc. to roll out TV programming to compete against cable companies.

A simmering battle between the cable TV industry and major phone companies is about to boil over. Cable operators plan to start running ads today that accuse AT&T Inc., Verizon Communications Inc. and other major phone carriers of lying to the public and elected officials as the companies use their networks to roll out new television services.

Qwest Communications International Inc., the No. 4 local-telephone provider, plans to raise its $8-billion offer for MCI Inc. in a bid to break up MCI's proposed acquisition by Verizon Communications Inc., people familiar with the matter said Friday. MCI, the No. 2 U.S. long-distance operator, reopened negotiations after Denver-based Qwest revised the $24.60-a-share bid.

Joseph P. Nacchio stepped down as chief executive of Qwest Communications International Inc. in 2002 in the spotlight's glare during a storm of questions about the company's accounting that ultimately led it to erase $2.5 billion in revenue. Now he has quietly returned to the telecom industry. Nacchio has invested in a small, privately held New Jersey company, BCN Telecom Inc.

Seeking a potential toehold in the lucrative long-distance business that federal regulators have so far blocked, SBC Communications Inc. said Monday that it will pay $4.4 billion in stock to buy a Connecticut telephone company. SBC's proposed acquisition of New Haven, Conn.-based Southern New England Telecommunications Corp.

Californians are justifiably proud of their state as the cradle of the electronic revolution. That revolution is ushering in the Information Age, an era of unlimited communication that will surpass the Industrial Age in its impact on global development. But five years after divestiture, California is hamstrung by a regulatory process that doesn't account for burgeoning competition and overlooks the time lag involved in implementing new technologies. We are trapped by an arcane process that serves neither consumers nor businesses.

Admittedly, telephone regulation issues can be complicated and beg for simplification. But not the kind of simplification columnist Michael Hiltzik provided ("SBC, It's All in the Way You Look at It," June 23). For example, California's 1989 New Regulatory Framework for telephone companies was the first of its kind, starting a form of oversight that has been copied by most states. It directly limits phone company prices while requiring quality service, all in ways that insulate customers from the financial effects of competition.

The Federal Communications Commission on Thursday rejected plans to require the whole country to dial 10 digits for every call, but that won't stop phone companies from lobbying for such a system. The truth is, the numbers problem won't ease until the agency overhauls antiquated rules that artificially depress the nation's supply of phone numbers. A chief purpose of technology should be to make life easier and more productive.