said by Linklist:said by Karl Bode:
The irony being, if we're remembering correctly, that these rules were lobbied for by these telecom giants. I think you may remember incorrectly. AT&T didn't lobby for those rules. They were forced down their throat by Judge Greene when Ma Bell was broken up because he didn't want rural carriers to go belly up. The future Baby Bells went along with it because they didn't have a choice. And there weren't telecom giants at that time. There was 1 giant - AT&T.
»
online.wsj.com/article/SB1191460···imary_hsBut the key was federal rules drafted during the 1983 break-up of Ma Bell, which required big telecom companies to pay hefty fees to small carriers to compensate for the high cost of providing service across miles of sparse farmland.
And it looks like the FCC is going to modify these rules because they aren't being used to keep rural phone companies alive, but so that a few individuals can make their profits thru loopholes.
»
online.wsj.com/article/SB1191460···imary_hsan investigation by the U.S. Federal Communications Commission into the high fees some rural carriers charged to the Bells. Late Tuesday, the FCC proposed rules that, if approved, are likely to prevent such deals in the future.
Here is the FCC news release on this:
»
fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/a···75A1.pdfThe Notice of Proposed Rulemaking:
»
fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/a···76A1.pdf I don't usually post on the news items, but this was too much to pass up. I understand the history behind this rule that the local telephone exchanges are using to boost their profits. I also understand that the FCC is looking to modify these rules, so the few rural exchanges using this will be stopped.
