Copyright 2000 / Los Angeles Times
Los Angeles
Times
View Related Topics
June 26, 2000, Monday, Home Edition
SECTION: Metro; Part B; Page 8; Editorial Writers
Desk
LENGTH: 436 words
HEADLINE: FCC, DON'T HANG UP ON THE PUBLIC
BODY:
For the Federal Communications Commission,
developing competition in local telephone markets is the regulatory Holy Grail.
The best way to stimulate competition, FCC Chairman William Kennard keeps
saying, is to let new technology loose. The agency has allowed the regional
Bells to grow bigger and the long-distance phone companies more audacious in the
hope this will give them the size and room to start competing for local phone
customers. The agency has refrained from regulation for fear of stifling new
technology. But exhortation alone has not worked. The FCC needs to make
increased competition the key condition in approving mergers and granting
licenses. It must make sure the new technology it is promoting does not serve as
a barrier to newcomers and that phone companies do not drag their feet in
opening their systems to competitors.
The recent flap over long-distance
phone rates shows the pitfalls of FCC policy. With much fanfare, Kennard
announced earlier this month a deal with long-distance companies that would
slash the fees they pay to the local companies for connecting calls. This, he
declared, would reduce phone bills for everybody.
It would indeed if the
long-distance carriers passed the savings on to consumers. AT&T, a key party
to the deal, had no such thing in mind. Even as it made promises about consumer
savings, AT&T notified the FCC it was raising per-minute rates by as much as
150% for long-distance calls made during the week and on Saturdays. It backed
off in the face of consumer outcry but then raised peak weekday prices anyway.
Clearly, Kennard's trust in AT&T was misplaced.
Meanwhile, consumer
complaints to the FCC against phone companies are going through the roof, up 82%
in the first half of last year, compared with the same period a year earlier.
The phone companies are so brazen that, rather than dealing with irate
customers, they switch the calls straight to the FCC's hotlines. Apparently they
feel they have nothing to fear from the watchdog agency. Incredibly, Kennard
sees the rise in complaints about deceptive and misleading marketing as a good
sign of aggressive competition among the phone companies.
Cable
companies, logical competitors in offering phone service, show no interest in
the business.
The FCC's policy isn't working. True, the unwieldy
Telecommunications Act of 1996, under which the FCC has to
operate, is full of internal contradictions and is not easy to administer. But
it should not reduce Kennard's agency to a cheerleader for the industry. The FCC
has teeth and ought to use them on behalf of consumers.
LOAD-DATE: June 26, 2000 
